Oral
Answers to
Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Northern Ireland Economy

Graham Evans: What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the Northern Ireland economy.

Jack Lopresti: What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the Northern Ireland economy.

James Brokenshire: Before I answer the questions, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in condemning the murder of Joe Reilly last Thursday in Belfast. My sympathy is with his family and with the local community. It is a stark reminder of why we must all continue to work together to ensure that this sort of violence has no place in Northern Ireland.
The UK and Northern Ireland economies are fundamentally strong. In Northern Ireland, economic activity increased by 1.6% over the year and 64,000 more people are in work since 2010. That means that we are well placed to build a stronger economy that works for everyone.

Graham Evans: I welcome the growth of the Northern Ireland economy, and particularly the fact that unemployment has fallen to its lowest levels since Labour’s great recession. I also welcome last week’s excellent news of the investment from Thales. Will my right hon. Friend continue to prioritise making the case for Northern Ireland as a great place to live, work and do business?

James Brokenshire: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. I will not tire in talking up the Northern Ireland economy and underlining what a great place it is to do business. He highlights investment; outside London, Northern Ireland is the leading UK region for attracting inward investment across a range of sectors. He is right to highlight the new and innovative investment from Thales, with its space propulsion facilities in Belfast, which underlines what a great place Northern Ireland is to do business.

Jack Lopresti: The Northern Ireland economy is doing well, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the devolution of corporation tax offers further opportunities to boost the private sector and to build a stronger economy for everyone?

James Brokenshire: I certainly underline to my hon. Friend that we stand by our commitment to the devolution of corporation tax powers, subject to the conditions around fiscal discipline and financial stability agreed in the Stormont House and “Fresh Start” agreements. The Northern Ireland Executive have indicated that they would like corporation tax to be set at around 12.5% from April 2018, and they estimate that that could create 30,000 more jobs.

Nigel Dodds: I join the Secretary of State in his comments about the recent murder. It is important that we all redouble our efforts to ensure that such events are a thing of the past.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, to build and strengthen the economy of Northern Ireland, investment in infrastructure is absolutely vital? The announcement by the Minister for Infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Executive that he was delaying the major York Street interchange project—for access to ports, an airport and a major road thoroughfare through Belfast to the rest of Northern Ireland—is a bit of a blow to that strategy. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to reiterate to the Minister for Infrastructure that all EU projects that are signed off before we leave the EU will be funded even if they continue after we leave the EU?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the continuance of EU funding. He will have noted the statement, which he has referred to, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer underlining that the Government will guarantee funding for structural and investment fund projects that are signed off until the point at which the UK leaves the EU, even where projects continue after we leave. It is important to underline that message. There should, therefore, be more projects coming forward, and we should continue to benefit from EU funding up until the point at which we depart.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for underlining that important commitment, which should allow investment in that much-needed project to go ahead.
On the question of exporters, who have received a boost as a result of the revaluation of the pound, Northern Ireland was the only area last year that grew its exports, by 9.5%. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment that the new Department for International Trade will work closely with Invest NI to continue that really positive news for Northern Ireland, along with many other very positive economic indicators for the Province?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman is right to underline the fact that the value of goods exported from Northern Ireland increased to £6.6 billion, which emphasises the strength of the Northern Ireland economy. The Secretary of State for International Trade has underlined his all-UK approach to his work, and he will want to work with Invest NI and the Executive to ensure that there is that clear message of seeing further investment and further exports coming from Northern Ireland.

Kevin Brennan: Manufacturing is very important to the Northern Ireland economy. Given the recent job losses at JTI  Gallaher and Michelin, what is the Secretary of State doing to safeguard current manufacturing jobs and to help to create more manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the role that manufacturing plays in the Northern Ireland economy. It directly contributes more than 85,000 jobs—some 10% of employment—and, clearly, it provides high-skilled jobs. As a Government, we will continue to work with the Executive on the issues of skills and pathways into employment. It is notable that we have seen record employment levels. We want to work with the Executive to ensure that that very positive picture continues, underlining the fact that we want to see further investment in the economy.

Deidre Brock: The Secretary of State will be aware that the financial and related professional services industry provides jobs for some 31,000 people in Northern Ireland and generates more than 6% of economic output. What are the Government doing to ensure that Northern Ireland will have the benefits of passporting for financial services after the UK leaves the EU so that that industry is not damaged?

James Brokenshire: I underline the work I have done as Secretary of State to reach out to the business community. Indeed, I have established a new advisory group, and one of the sectors we have met is the financial services sector. We are listening keenly to the information that it is providing us with as we frame our all-UK approach to the negotiations that lie ahead with the EU.

David Anderson: On the back of the Chancellor’s comment to Nissan that it will be compensated for losses due to Brexit, the Secretary of State for Scotland said at the Dispatch Box two weeks ago:
“whatever support is put in place for businesses in the north of England will apply to businesses in Scotland.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 287.]
Given that the manufacturing sector plays such a pivotal role in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that his Government’s policy will apply to Northern Ireland in the same way as it appears to apply to Scotland and the north of England?

James Brokenshire: We take an all-UK approach. That is the way in which the Chancellor has been approaching his announcements about support post the departure from the EU, ensuring that we do have such a UK-wide approach, and indeed his preparations for his autumn statement. The approach will be to support the UK, with Northern Ireland being a core part of that.

Armed Forces Covenant

Jim Shannon: If he will take steps to work with the Secretary of State for Defence to enhance future funding for the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland.

Kris Hopkins: The armed forces covenant is making a real difference in Northern Ireland. Bids for funding from the armed forces covenant fund have been  more successful in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the UK. Grants that have been made include £450,000 for Combat Stress to help veterans with mental health support, and £600,000 for the Somme Nursing Home in Belfast to enable it to add more bed spaces for veterans requiring nursing care.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his response. Northern Ireland is in 10th place among all the regions of the United Kingdom for small grants. Beyond the Battlefield has applied for LIBOR funding for four years running, with a substantial and detailed business plan, but it has not been successful. Does the Minister consider that to be fair? What steps will he take to address that imbalance, and to help groups and bodies such as Beyond the Battlefield to prepare successful applications?

Kris Hopkins: I commend the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for making sure that they have secured the largest proportion of the big pot, although I appreciate that he is now going after the small pot. His point about how to secure the funding is really important, and I am more than willing to sit down with him to talk about how we can support that package.

Sylvia Hermon: Will the Minister confirm that he and the Secretary of State have the determination and the will to eliminate all impediments to the full implementation—I do mean the full implementation—of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland?

Kris Hopkins: I do not think I need to go further to reassure the hon. Lady than to say that I want the best possible services for our veterans. I want the covenant to be implemented in full, and I will do everything I can to ensure that that happens.

Anna Soubry: May I add to the comments of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and to those of other hon. Friends representing Northern Ireland? When I went there as the Minister with responsibility for veterans, I was, frankly, deeply struck—perhaps only an English person can say this—by the complete lack of drive to ensure that all its local authorities signed up to the military covenant, as local authorities have done across the whole United Kingdom. There is no reason why the covenant should not be in effect in Northern Ireland just as much as it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Kris Hopkins: I agree with my right hon. Friend that every council should participate. I get the opportunity to meet lots of councils, and I know that a lot of them are making a massive contribution, but where they are not, I reassure her that I will push those councils to do so.

Danny Kinahan: May I disagree with the Minister? The armed forces covenant is not working especially well in Northern Ireland. There is £100 million in the LIBOR funds for the whole military covenant. Can some of that be used to make sure that the mechanisms work—that is, that we get a nominee on to the covenant reference group, that the reserve forces and cadets association gets the support it needs to help all soldiers and that the champions get some help?

Kris Hopkins: I know that there are opportunities to get on to the committee that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I will support him if he wants to do that. I know it is a big issue, and I say this as ex-services personnel myself: I want to make sure that this works, and that every partner—not just councils but health authorities and housing authorities—works together. But this is devolved, and it is up to the Executive to make it work. However, as someone with a history in this area, I will assist him in every way I can to ensure that that is delivered.

Steve Pound: The shadow of the past hangs heavily over the questions that have been asked and there are many unquiet graves still on the island of Ireland. Bearing in mind that it is now 42 years since the atrocity of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings and in view of the vote in the Dáil Éireann, what contact and communication is the Minister having with the Irish Government on this question?

Kris Hopkins: I agree that that act 42 years ago was appalling, and offer my sympathies to the families of those who were lost. There is a continuing dialogue with the Irish Government and their Foreign Minister. We will continue that and I am quite happy to have discussions with the hon. Gentleman if he wants further information about the progress we are making.

Leaving the EU: Republic of Ireland

Craig Whittaker: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

Jeff Smith: What discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the Government’s negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.

Michael Tomlinson: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

James Brokenshire: I have met and will continue to meet counterparts in the Irish Government as we work through the challenges ahead. The UK-Irish relationship has never been stronger. It is a unique relationship, and in the coming months we will strengthen co-operation to help to secure the best outcome from the EU negotiations.

Craig Whittaker: I think my right hon. Friend will agree that both the common travel area and the open border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have served us well for decades. Will he do everything he can to ensure those arrangements continue and that there is no establishment of hard borders within the island of Ireland or within the UK?

James Brokenshire: I agree with my hon. Friend that the common travel area has served us well over many years; indeed, we were party to it before we joined the European Union. It is a priority that we do not see a return to the borders of the past.

Jeff Smith: I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State reassure us that the common travel area is a key priority. Does not the fact that citizens of EU countries will be able to move freely to live and work in the Irish Republic make a nonsense of the leave campaign claims that Brexit means that somehow we can take back control of our borders?

James Brokenshire: No. This Government are very clear that the EU referendum underlined that free movement cannot continue as it does today. We are considering carefully the options in relation to migration policy as well as border policy, to ensure that both work in the best interests of the United Kingdom.

Michael Tomlinson: Security co-operation between our two countries is vital to fight against organised crime and terrorism. As we leave the EU, will the Secretary of State ensure that that continues to be a priority in his ongoing discussions?

James Brokenshire: I entirely agree. There are very strong relationships and connections between An Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other UK Government agencies. Those have been and will continue to be really valuable and we are determined to maintain them.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: A number of institutions have been established for discussing these matters with the Government of the Irish Republic, including the North South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those are the bodies through which discussions take place, and not some ad hoc arrangement?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the structures that have been in place since the Belfast agreement, such as the North South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council, which will meet again in a few weeks. They are really important and valuable structures that can and will be used in supporting the negotiations ahead; there is of course the new Joint Ministerial sub-committee as well.

Laurence Robertson: Given that Her Majesty’s Government, the Irish Government and political parties in Northern Ireland want to see the special relationship and soft border continue, is it not incumbent on the European Union to allow us to exit on terms that will enable us to preserve that relationship?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend underlines a very significant point, which is the support that other EU member states have provided to the political process in Northern Ireland over many, many years. That is a point we have underlined and the Irish Government have underlined. We will continue to do so as we look towards the negotiations.

Mark Durkan: Charlie Flanagan said in Derry on Friday night:
“I view my role as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement as a solemn duty and—together with the Taoiseach—will be working to ensure that all aspects of that international agreement   are fully respected in the new arrangements between the EU and the UK. Ireland has a seat at the EU table which we will use in the best interests of the whole island.”
Does the Secretary of State recognise that that will include the need for a bespoke and explicit reflection of the key constitutional precepts in annex A of the Good Friday agreement in any new EU-UK treaty?

James Brokenshire: The Irish Government and the UK Government are co-signatories of the Belfast agreement. I have said on a number of occasions that we stand behind our commitments. There are unique circumstances that operate on the island of Ireland: the common travel area, the single electricity market and so on. We are determined to find the right solutions that serve Northern Ireland well and all of the all-Ireland issues.

Alex Cunningham: In the recent referendum, Northern Ireland voted to remain. In large part, that was due to issues relating to the border with the Irish Republic. This is a key issue for the Secretary of State, but more so for working families, so will he tell us what the Government’s policy is in relation to the border?

James Brokenshire: As I have already underlined, the Government are determined not to see a return to the borders of the past. We want to strengthen the common travel area. Work with the Irish Government has been ongoing for many months and will continue, reflecting the important issues the hon. Gentleman highlights on the movement of people, the movement of goods and services, and the sense of politics and identity, which is why this is such a priority.

Graham Jones: The Secretary of State says he wants to take back control of our borders, in particular this border. At the same time, he says he wants to keep the common travel area and the current arrangements. Is that not contradictory nonsense? In the end, won’t it be the EU that decides, because it is the Republic’s border? What conversations has he had with the EU on that matter?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman wants to get into negotiations that have not yet started. I underline the shared will and commitment of ourselves, the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to support the common travel area and to ensure we do not return to the borders of the past. That is the work we have ahead of us.

David Anderson: We have already heard the huge concerns in Northern Ireland about the specific problems posed by Brexit. One fundamental issue that has not been addressed so far is the fate of the Good Friday agreement, which is an international agreement formally registered with the United Nations. Will the Secretary of State tell the House today what specific measures he and civil servants in Northern Ireland have taken to ensure that this important issue is not left behind in the wake of Brexit?

James Brokenshire: The Government remain fully committed to the political settlement and the institutions set out in the Belfast agreement and all its successors.  The key principles established there, the details that have been taken over successive Governments, are things that we do not want to unsettle and that we will maintain. I assure the hon. Gentleman of the focus we are giving to this matter.

Leaving the EU: Northern Ireland Economy

Toby Perkins: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on the Northern Ireland economy of the UK leaving the EU.

James Brokenshire: Following my appointment, I established an advisory group to ensure the voice of business is heard. It is clear that our focus now needs to be on what we can achieve in terms of trade, jobs and exploiting the opportunities of the UK’s exit from the EU.

Toby Perkins: The Secretary of State referred a few minutes ago to taking a whole-country approach to the EU referendum negotiations. The Chancellor recently spoke to the British Bankers Association about the specific needs of the banking industry. If special privileges in terms of the single market are afforded to the City of London, will the Secretary of State be asking for the same privileges for Northern Ireland?

James Brokenshire: I set up the advisory group and am speaking to individual sectors within the Northern Ireland economy precisely to ensure that their voice is heard as we prepare for the negotiations ahead, and to ensure that, where there are specific issues and concerns, they are heard as part of those preparations and are reflected in the negotiations.

Bob Blackman: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that leaving the European Union will enable the Northern Ireland economy to be rebalanced in favour of the private sector rather than the public sector? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. I could scarcely hear the dulcet tones of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), and I feel considerably disadvantaged.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend identifies—I think rightly—the opportunities for bringing about greater focus on enterprise in the Northern Ireland economy, where there has been significant reliance on the state to support employment. We need to work with the Executive on skills and opportunities, which is precisely what we will be doing. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We are discussing matters appertaining to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Members must be heard.

David Simpson: I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit of the businesses in Northern Ireland, especially the small and medium-sized enterprises, are second to none, and that whatever they face with Brexit, they are up for the challenge.

James Brokenshire: I have heard that message very clearly. There are some fantastic, innovative businesses and some great family businesses in Northern Ireland. We want to support them to take that next step, to grow their business and to look at the new opportunities for exports. I think they now have a great opportunity to do that.

Leaving the EU: Northern Ireland Economy

Alasdair McDonnell: What discussions he has had with the European Commission and Governments of other EU member states on the free movement of people, goods, capital and labour between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after the UK has left the EU.

James Brokenshire: The Government take part in regular direct discussions with the Irish Government through a number of forums, including the upcoming British-Irish Council. We will ensure that we engage closely with all relevant partners to secure the best outcome for Northern Ireland.

Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the Secretary of State’s earlier comments about the increase in employment, which is very important, but in light of the significant damage to the British economy, the dramatic fall in the value of sterling and the increase in the price of food and fuel as a result of the referendum, does he accept that many businesses in Northern Ireland are frightened that damage to the Northern Ireland economy will be magnified relative to the British economy?

James Brokenshire: I reiterate for the hon. Gentleman the strong base that we see, with record levels of employment, exports that have grown significantly and continuing foreign direct investment. I will continue to champion business in Northern Ireland and to underline the fact that Northern Ireland remains open for business. A number of firms are continuing to invest and create jobs, which we will continue to welcome.

Tom Elliott: Four counties in the Republic of Ireland border my constituency, so what specific issues will the Secretary of State raise with his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that cross-border trade can continue?

James Brokenshire: I have already had two meetings—with the Taoiseach and with the Irish Foreign Minister—and there are more meetings and discussions to come. The British-Irish Council meeting is coming up in a just a few weeks’ time. Border issues such as protecting the common travel area and not seeing a return to the borders of the past are a priority, and also a shared objective between the two Governments. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: If I may say politely to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell): spit it out succinctly, man.

Gregory Campbell: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that over the past few months there have been reports from the retail trade in Northern Ireland of a veritable multi-million   pound boom along the border in shoppers from the Irish Republic, and that we should do more to encourage that as business continues to make progress?

James Brokenshire: Yes, I have seen those reports. When I visited towns in and around the border area, they certainly underlined some of the growth in business opportunities that they were seeing—something we clearly warmly welcome.

Security

Henry Bellingham: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Kris Hopkins: The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism continues to be “severe”, meaning that an attack is highly likely. Our response to terrorism and paramilitary activity is co-ordinated, effective and fully resourced. This Government’s focus is on keeping people safe, and we will ensure that terrorism never succeeds.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that it is damaging both to the security situation in Northern Ireland and to the peace process when former members of the armed forces who have been cleared on multiple occasions are now arrested for offences that are alleged to have taken place more than 40 years ago? Will he agree to meet me to discuss the broader issues surrounding the case of Corporal Major Dennis Hutchings?

Kris Hopkins: Criminal investigations and prosecutions are a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities, who act independently of Government and politicians. The Government therefore cannot comment on individual cases. However, I am more than willing to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the broader issue that he has raised.

Ian Paisley Jnr: In the past two years, 1,631 police officers—a quarter of Northern Ireland’s police force—have been injured or assaulted while on duty. When will the Northern Ireland Office fund and support a new recruitment drive to return the number of officers to the 7,800 required under the Patten settlement?

Kris Hopkins: I condemn all those attacks. They are absolutely appalling. This is, however, a devolved matter, and it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to make decisions on recruitment and numbers.

Margaret Ritchie: Does the Minister agree that the best way of tackling paramilitarism and criminality in Northern Ireland is to adopt the community-wide approach that was outlined by the SDLP during last year’s Stormont House talks, rather than throwing money at paramilitary organisations?

Kris Hopkins: I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but I can give her some comfort. We have ensured that £25 million is available specifically to counter paramilitary activity, and we are working with the Executive to deliver that. We look forward to seeing the report in the near future.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

James Morris: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 26 October.

Theresa May: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

James Morris: In the black country, in the west midlands, we are very proud of our long industrial heritage. We are also very proud of the recent revival in the fortunes of the black country, which is seeing new jobs and investment in the local economy. Does the Prime Minister agree that one way to create an economy that works for everyone is to devolve further powers and funds to the west midlands to drive investment, and to combine that with the strong leadership and vision that can only be provided by Andy Street, the Conservative candidate for the position of west midlands mayor?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend speaks up well for the black country, and I am pleased to echo his comments about economic growth in the west midlands. Since 2010, we have seen the creation of over 220,000 more jobs and 55,000 more new businesses in the region. However, he is right to say that the devolution deal is important. It is the biggest devolution deal that is being done for the west midlands. A crucial part of it is the election of a directly elected mayor, and I think that, given both his local knowledge and his business experience, Andy Street will drive economic growth.

Jeremy Corbyn: Let me start by welcoming the child refugees who have arrived in Britain in the last few days. They are obviously deeply traumatised young people, and we should welcome, love and support them in the best way that we possibly can.
Irrespective of party, when Members go through health problems we reach out the hand of support, solidarity and friendship to them. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) for the message that he sent through social media this morning. It showed amazing humour and bravery. We wish him all the very best, and hope that he recovers fully.
There are now to be regular sessions of the Joint Ministerial Council to discuss Brexit, but it seems that the Prime Minister’s counterparts are already feeling the same sense of frustration as Members of the House of Commons. The First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, has said that there is a “great deal of uncertainty”, but that it is clear that there must be “full and unfettered access” to the single market. Can the Prime Minister help the First Minister of Wales—and, indeed, the other devolved Administrations—by giving them some clarity?

Theresa May: Let me first—in response to the right hon. Gentleman’s opening comments—commend the Home Office for working so carefully and in the best interests of the child refugees so that they have the  support that they need when they come to the United Kingdom. Let me also join the right hon. Gentleman in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) for his willingness to be so open about his health problem. We wish him all the very best for the future, and for his place here in the House.
On the issue of clarity on the Government’s aims in relation to Brexit, I have been very clear and I will be clear again. There are those who talk about means and those who talk about ends; I am talking about ends. What we want to see is the best possible arrangement for trade with and operation within the single European market for businesses in goods and services here in the United Kingdom.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thought for a moment the Prime Minister was going to say “Brexit means Brexit” again. [Interruption.] I am sure she will tell us one day what it actually means. The Mayor of London also added that this is causing “unnecessary uncertainty”.
It would also be very helpful if the Prime Minister could provide some clarity over the Northern Ireland border. Will we continue membership of the customs union or are we going to see border checks introduced between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

Theresa May: The Leader of the Opposition tries to poke fun at the phrase “Brexit means Brexit”, but the whole point is this: on Brexit, it is this Government who are listening to the voice of the British people. “Brexit means Brexit” means we are coming out of the European Union. What the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do is frustrate the will of the British people by saying that Brexit means something completely different.
In relation to the Northern Irish border, a considerable amount of work was already taking place with the Irish Government to look at the issues around the common travel area, and that work is continuing. We have been very clear, the Government of the Republic of Ireland have been very clear, and the Northern Ireland Executive have been very clear that none of us wants to see a return to the borders of the past, and I simply remind the right hon. Gentleman that the common travel area has been in place since 1923, which was well before either of us joined the European Union.

Jeremy Corbyn: On Monday the Prime Minister said that the customs union was “not a binary choice”. I cannot think that whether we have a border or do not have a border is anything other than a binary choice; there is no third way on that one. On Monday her friend the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) expressed concern about the automotive and aerospace industries, while the British Bankers Association said that its members’
“hands are quivering over the relocate button.”
Every day the Prime Minister dithers over this chaotic Brexit, employers delay investment and rumours circulate about relocation. This cannot carry on until March of next year; when is the Prime Minister going to come up with a plan?

Theresa May: The fact that the right hon. Gentleman seems to confuse a customs union with a border when they are actually two different issues shows—  [Interruption]—shows why it is important that it is this party that is in government and dealing with these issues and not his.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the plan. I have been very clear that we want to trade freely—both trade with and operate within the single European market. I want this country to be a global leader in free trade; the Labour party is against free trade. I want to introduce control on free movement so that we have an end of free movement; the Labour party wants to continue with free movement. I want to deliver on the will of the British people; the right hon. Gentleman is trying to frustrate the will of the British people.

Jeremy Corbyn: There was no answer on the border, which was what the question was about. On Monday the Prime Minister told the House:
“We have a plan, which is not to set out at every stage of the negotiations the details of those negotiations”.—[Official Report, 24 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 31.]
I have been thinking about this for a couple of days, and—[Interruption.] I think when we are searching for the real meaning and the importance of the Prime Minister’s statement, we should consult the great philosophers. [Interruption.] The only one I could come up with—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Mr Cleverly, calm yourself. You are imperilling your own health, man, which is a source of great concern to me.

Jeremy Corbyn: The only one I could come up with was Baldrick, who said that his “cunning plan” was to have no plan. Brexit was apparently about taking back control, but the devolved Governments do not know the plan, businesses do not know the plan and Parliament does not know the plan. When will the Prime Minister abandon this shambolic Tory Brexit and develop a plan that delivers for the whole country?

Theresa May: I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman chose to support Baldrick. Of course, the actor who played Baldrick was a member of the Labour party, as I recall. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what we are going to deliver. We are going to deliver on the vote of the British people. We are going to deliver the best possible deal for trade in goods and services, both with and operationally in the European Union. And we are going to deliver an end to free movement. That is what the British people want and that is what this Government are going to deliver for them.

Jeremy Corbyn: Three years ago, the United Kingdom backed Saudi Arabia for membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council. On 28 October, there will again be elections for the Human Rights Council. A UN panel has warned that Saudi Arabia’s bombing of Yemen has violated international law. Amnesty International has stated that
“executions are on the increase…women are widely discriminated against…torture is common…and human rights organisations are banned”.
Will the Government again be backing the Saudi dictatorship for membership of that committee?

Theresa May: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, where there are legitimate human rights concerns in relation to Saudi Arabia, we raise them. In relation to   the action in the Yemen, we have been clear that we want the incidents that have been referred to properly investigated, and if there are lessons to be learned from them, we want the Saudi Arabians to learn those lessons. I reiterate a point that I have made in this House before: our relationship with Saudi Arabia is an important one. It is particularly important in relation to the security of this country, to counter-terrorism and to foiling the activities of those who wish to do harm to our citizens here in the UK.

Jeremy Corbyn: Taher Qassim, a Yemeni man who lives in Liverpool, told me this week:
“Yemen is quickly becoming the forgotten crisis. If people aren’t being killed by bombs, it’s hunger that kills them. The UK needs to use its influence to help the people of Yemen”.
Bombs exported from Britain are being dropped on Yemeni children by Saudi pilots trained by Britain. If there are war crimes being committed, as the United Nations suggests, they must be investigated. Is it not about time that this Government suspended their arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

Theresa May: The issues are being investigated, and we have taken action. The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the humanitarian crisis in the Yemen, and this country is one of those at the forefront of ensuring that humanitarian aid is provided. That is a record of action of which I believe this country and this Government can be proud around the world. There was a cessation of hostilities in the Yemen over the weekend. It lasted 72 hours. As I said in the House on Monday, I spoke to the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi at the weekend, and one of the issues we discussed was the importance of trying to find a political solution in Yemen and to see whether that cessation of hostilities could be continued. It has not been continued, but we are clear that the only solution that is going to work for the Yemen is to ensure that we have a political solution that will give stability to the Yemen.

Christopher Chope: Twenty years ago, a Conservative Government agreed that the Christchurch and East Dorset Councils could retain their sovereignty, independence and control over their own destiny. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will not agree to the abolition of either Christchurch Council or East Dorset Council against the will of my constituents?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to speak up for his constituents. He is also right that there is no single model that will work in every part of the country. That is why it is important for local people to come together to determine what is right for them. My hon. Friend is trying to build a consensus in Dorset on the right way forward. It is right that local people are able to respond to the consultation and that their concerns are listened to.

Angus Robertson: The Scottish poppy appeal launches today for parliamentarians, so may I take this opportunity to praise all the fundraisers, volunteers and veterans involved? I am sure that colleagues in other parts of the House will commend the efforts to raise money for the poppy appeal in the rest of the United Kingdom.
One of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of our time is in Syria, specifically Aleppo, where we expect the ceasefire to end shortly and an onslaught to begin. Will the Prime Minister tell us what efforts the UK is currently undertaking not only to support a peaceful resolution to the conflict, but to deal with those who are exacerbating the situation?

Theresa May: I join the right hon. Gentleman in commending and praising the work of all those across the United Kingdom who give their time and effort to raise money for the poppy appeal. It is important that we never forget those who have given of themselves for our safety and security through many conflicts. It is important that we recognise that and give generously to the poppy appeal across the country.
On Syria, it is important to approach the matter on a number of tracks. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been involved in discussions with the US Secretary of State, Senator Kerry, on such issues, looking for the way forward. I raised the issue of Russian action in Syria, in particular the bombing of Aleppo, at the EU Council at the end of last week, where it was on the agenda only because the UK had raised it. As a result of that discussion the EU agreed that, should the atrocities continue, we will look at all available options for taking action to put pressure on Russia in order to stop its indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians.

Angus Robertson: I commend the Prime Minister for those endeavours, but it is widely expected that the onslaught on Aleppo will be unleashed by the Russian airpower that is aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov, currently steaming across the Mediterranean with its battle group. In recent years, more than 60 Russian naval vessels have refuelled and resupplied in Spanish ports, so will the Prime Minister join me and EU and NATO allies in unequivocally calling on Spain to refuse the refuelling?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the passage of Russian naval ships. They are of course able to travel as they wish on the high seas—although they were accompanied by royal naval vessels when they went through the English channel. We have sadly seen that the Russians are already able to unleash attacks on innocent civilians in Syria. What matters is that we put pressure on Russia to do what everybody agrees is the only way that we are going to resolve the issue, which is to ensure that we have a political transition in Syria. That is where we should focus our attention.

Wendy Morton: My constituency forms part of the new west midlands combined authority, where new powers will be devolved to the authority and the mayor. Will the Prime Minister tell me how those new powers will help my constituents and local businesses in sectors such as manufacturing, the automotive industry, and bricks and ceramics?

Theresa May: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the proposed deal will provide the west midlands with £1 billion over 30 years to spend on local projects that will drive economic growth. That is the important part of the deal and is why it is so important to have a mayor, Andy Street, who not only understands the local area but has business expertise to ensure that those economic projects are developed with the interests of  the locality as the prime focus. The deal will deliver more jobs and economic prosperity across the west midlands. It is good for the west midlands and her constituents. It is good for the rest of the country as well.

Helen Hayes: The independent inquiry on child sexual abuse was established to deliver long-awaited justice for victims and survivors, and to do so it must have their confidence. The Shirley Oaks Survivors Association represents more than 600 survivors of abuse that took place in Lambeth Council-run children’s homes and has recently raised serious concerns about changes to the inquiry. Will the Prime Minister meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and representatives from the Shirley Oaks Survivors Association to discuss their concerns and take action, so that confidence can be restored?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady makes a very important point: the whole purpose of this inquiry was to be able to provide justice for those whose voices had not been heard for too long and who felt that people in positions of power and institutions of the state, and other organisations, had not heard their voice, and had not been prepared to listen to them and properly to investigate what had happened to them. It is important that victims and survivors have confidence in the inquiry. Of course, the inquiry is an independent inquiry and it is up to its chairman to work with survivors and victims, as I know the inquiry chairman has been doing. But I will ensure that the Home Secretary has heard the representations the hon. Lady has made, and we will take what she has said to us today away and consider it very carefully. We all want this inquiry to work properly, and to work in the interests of survivors and victims.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The Prime Minister will be aware that our nation’s commitment to our current and former armed forces personnel and their families by way of the armed forces covenant is a work in progress, and that although we have made important moves there is still much more to do. Will she take this opportunity to assure this House of her personal commitment to the values and promises set out in the covenant, and to pledge to lend her support to efforts to continue the good work begun, and to ensure that personnel, veterans and their families face no disadvantage arising from their service and the sacrifice they have all made for our country?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know she has championed the armed forces covenant and is a great proponent of our veterans and the armed forces. It is absolutely right to say that everybody in this House owes a great debt of gratitude to our veterans and to those serving today in our armed forces for what they do to keep us safe and secure. That is why it is so important that the covenant is not just a responsibility for the Government, but a national responsibility; we should all be working to ensure that those who have served us, and served us well, do not face disadvantages. That is why we have been doing things such as putting money into a forces Help to Buy scheme to help them with houses—I believe the figure is  £200 million. We must continue to do this, and I absolutely commit to ensuring that this is a Government who continue to support our veterans and the members of our armed forces.

Karl Turner: .

Theresa May: First, may I recognise and commend the hon. Gentleman for raising his personal experience of the terrible tragedy that can occur when mental health problems are not properly dealt with. He raises a very serious issue—it is a serious issue for everybody in this House—about how the NHS treats mental health. This is why we have established the concept of parity of esteem for mental health and physical health in the NHS, and why we are seeing record levels of funding. He raises the question of talking therapies, which are very effective, and we have been introducing waiting time standards in relation to them. However, I accept that there is more for us to do in this area to ensure that those with mental health problems are properly treated, and are properly given the care and attention they need. This is an issue not just for them, but for the whole of our society.

David Amess: .

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Chilcot report was an important task. Although it looked at and criticised the way in which information had been handled, it did not say that people had set out deliberately to mislead, and it is important to recognise that. It is important also that we learn the lessons from the Chilcot report, which is why the National Security Adviser is leading an exercise to do precisely that. This was a long time coming. It was a serious report. There is much in it, and we need to ensure that we do learn the lessons from it.

Alasdair McDonnell: The Prime Minister will be aware that much of the foundation and many of the elements of the 1998 settlement and peace agreement in Northern Ireland were referenced and rooted in EU approaches and processes of laws and that leaving the EU will significantly destabilise the foundations of that settlement. Has the Prime Minister given any consideration to the extent of the potential damage the withdrawal from the European Union could do to that Good Friday/Belfast agreement and the 1998 political settlement? Does she have any plan at this stage to protect that settlement?

Theresa May: There is no reason to believe that the outcome of the referendum will do anything to undermine the absolute rock-solid commitment of this Government and the people of Northern Ireland to the settlement that was set out in the Belfast agreement. There is, and remains, strong support for the entirely peaceful future for Northern Ireland. That has been determined by democracy and consent. We remain committed to that and to work with others to ensure that entirely peaceful future.

Jeremy Lefroy: General Electric has shown its confidence in the UK economy and my constituents by starting construction of the second of its two new world-class research and manufacturing facilities on Staffordshire County Council’s Redhill Business Park. Will the Prime Minister meet General Electric and other west midlands manufacturers to hear just how important supply chains and markets free of tariffs and bureaucracy are to them and their hundreds of thousands of staff?

Theresa May: I am delighted to hear of the commitment that GE has made to Stafford, but it is more than a commitment to Stafford; it is a commitment to the United Kingdom and to the future of our economy. I understand that the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade has already met GE to discuss its interests in trade and what we can be doing to promote free trade. As I said earlier, I want the UK to be a global leader in free trade. We are listening to businesses around the country and to the importance that they place on free trade as we look at the negotiations for exiting the EU.

Jim Dowd: Is the Prime Minister aware of the recent reports showing the continuing and alarming increase in average alcohol consumption in the UK, particularly among women? Given the numerous health risks associated with excessive alcohol consumption, will her Government, together with the drinks industry, re-examine the case for mandatory health warnings on all alcoholic products?

Theresa May: I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes from the figures that we have seen recently, particularly the figures in relation to women and the use of alcohol. As Home Secretary, I was part of the development of the alcohol strategy that the Government produced a few years ago. I am pleased to say that, at that time, we were working well with industry to encourage it to ensure that it could take steps to impact on the drinking habits of the nation.

Maggie Throup: Given the imminence of the final decision on the eastern route of HS2, phase two, it is imperative that we invest in new road infrastructure to support the additional traffic that that will bring to the areas around the new station hubs. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend back my campaign for a new junction 25a of the M1 to ensure that Erewash residents do not get stuck in a jam?

Theresa May: I seem to recall that I first met my hon. Friend when she was campaigning in relation to motorways. She is right that in order to support the  rail infrastructure, we need to ensure that the right roads infrastructure is in place. That is why we are investing £15 billion in the road investment strategy, which is about boosting local economies and further economic growth. I understand that Highways England is looking at the issues in the east midlands and at bringing forward significant new road enhancements around the expected site of the new east midlands HS2 station. Going forward it is looking at an audit of roads in the area. I trust that on this issue my hon. Friend will make her voice heard, and that of her constituents, as she has in the past.

Alison McGovern: 

Theresa May: I gave a serious answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), which is that we have been looking at the whole issue of talking therapies, their availability and the waiting times for them. We do want to improve the options that people have for access to talking therapies, precisely because they have been shown to be so successful in so many cases. The Government are working on this and we will continue to work on it to provide, as we have said, that parity of esteem between mental health and physical health in the national health service.

Stephen Hammond: As a former Wimbledonian, my right hon. Friend will understand the significance of transport for south-west London and in particular for Wimbledon. Can she assure me that the Government still support Crossrail 2, and will she ask the Secretary of State for Transport to set out the timetable for the delayed consultation?

Theresa May: I can absolutely give the commitment that we continue to support Crossrail 2. We are waiting to see a robust business case and a proper funding proposal for Crossrail 2. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will in due course set out the timetable for that, but as a former Wimbledonian I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of his interest in the Wimbledon to Waterloo aspects of the project, and that the needs of the local area are being taken into account.

Yasmin Qureshi: In Indian-occupied Kashmir over the past three months 150 people have died, 600 have been blinded by the deliberate use of pellet guns, and more than 16,000 injured, many critically. There have been unexplained disappearances and shortages of food and medicine. Will the Prime Minister meet me and cross-party colleagues to discuss the human rights abuses and the issue of self-determination for Kashmiri people, as was set out in the UN resolution in 1948? Will she raise the matter with the Indian Prime Minister?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady sets out her case and the issues that she has identified. I take the same view as this Government have taken since they came into power and previously, which is that the issue of Kashmir is a matter for India and Pakistan to deal with and sort out. The Foreign Secretary has heard her representations and I am sure will be interested in taking up those matters with her.

Jack Lopresti: Several months ago I raised with the former Prime Minister at his last Prime Minister’s questions the issue of enhanced medical assistance for the Kurdish peshmerga. I then wrote to the new Prime Minister. Now, with the campaign to liberate Mosul under way, will my right hon. Friend agree to meet with me and representatives of the Kurdistan Regional Government to discuss whether we can provide specialist medical facilities here in the UK—for instance, 10 beds for seriously wounded peshmerga—and to ensure that the forces on the ground are getting all the support they need? I understand that they are short of heavy weapons and basic infantry kit such as helmets and body armour.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right and I recognise that this is a matter that he has raised before. We have seen that the coalition activity that is taking place is having some impact, and is having an impact, as we wish it to, in relation to Daesh. There are no plans at present either to do what he suggested in his question or to provide a field hospital and field medical capabilities from the United Kingdom, but we continually review what we are doing in support of the coalition, and the training that we are providing for the peshmerga includes training in the provision of medical facilities.

Owen Thompson: I am sure that we all recognise that the removal of the camp at Calais is not a long-term solution to the ongoing humanitarian crisis. What will the Government do to learn from the experiences in Calais and speed up the acceptance of vulnerable individuals, as they committed to do under Lords Dubs’s scheme?

Theresa May: Individuals are already being brought to the United Kingdom under the Dubs amendment, in addition to the resettlement scheme for vulnerable Syrians—the 20,000 who will be brought here over the course of this Parliament—and in addition to the 3,000 vulnerable people, children and others, who will be brought here from the middle east and north Africa. We are working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure that it is right for those individuals to come to the UK and that they have support when they get here. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this country is the second biggest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid in the Syrian region, and we are able to support and provide for more people in-region, which I think is absolutely the right thing to do.

Tania Mathias: Around Heathrow legal air quality limits are being breached, and over Twickenham noise pollution has increased, according to Heathrow data. Can the Prime Minister explain how a third runway can be delivered and comply with legal pollution requirements? Does she agree that, environmentally, Heathrow is not good enough and cannot possibly be both bigger and better?

Theresa May: The Government looked very closely at the issue of air quality and the environmental impact of all three schemes proposed by the Airports Commission. We took extra time, from the decision to increase airport capacity in the south-east, because we wanted to look particularly at the air quality issues. The evidence shows that air quality standards can be met, as required by all three schemes, including the north-west runway at Heathrow. My hon. Friend raises an issue that is actually about more than airports, because air quality is also about road transport. That is why we are looking to do more in relation to air quality. It is why, for example, I am pleased to see that we are at such a leading edge in the provision of electric vehicles.

Hywel Williams: The Prime Minister’s real plan for Brexit seems to be to pick winners: to cut a special deal for the City of London and let the bankers avoid the dire consequences of leaving the economic union. Wales has an exporting economy, with a £5 billion trade surplus last year, and 200,000 jobs dependent on trade with the European Union. It is a soft Brexit for her friends in the City, and a hard Brexit for everybody else. Will she cut a similar deal for Wales?

Theresa May: I will be cutting the best deal for the United Kingdom—all parts of it.

George Freeman: Every year, hundreds of people are diagnosed with, suffer and usually die prematurely from rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis and rare cancers, for which there has been no treatment, or for which the latest drugs are prohibitively expensive. This week sees the final report of our accelerated access review, which sets out a new model for the NHS to use its genetic and data leadership to get quicker access and discounted prices. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the review, which is strongly supported by patients, charities and the life sciences sector, and in encouraging the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and NHS England to implement it speedily?

Theresa May: I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the publication of the review. This is important in enabling patients to get quicker access to drugs and treatments. The United Kingdom has established a leading role in life sciences, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the role he has played in that. I know that the Department of Health will be looking very closely at the report’s specific recommendations, recognising that where we can take opportunities through the national health service to encourage the development of new drugs to benefit patients, we should do so.

Luciana Berger: The Prime Minister has just told us that record levels of spending are going into our mental health services. Her Health Secretary stood at that Dispatch Box on 9 December and told us that the proportion of funding going into mental health from every one of our clinical commissioning groups should be increasing. Why is it, then, that 57% of CCGs in our country are reducing the proportion of spend on mental health? It is yet another broken promise. When will we have real equality for mental health in our country?

Theresa May: The fact that I set out—that we are spending record levels in the NHS on mental health—is absolutely right, but I have said in response to a number of people who have questioned me on this that we recognise that there is more for us to do in mental health, and I would have thought that we should have cross-party support on doing just that.

Helen Whately: Speaking outside 10 Downing Street on the day she became Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend said:
“If you suffer from mental health problems, there is not enough help to hand.”
I welcome her commitment to mental health, expressed on that day and in her responses today. What steps is she taking to make sure the bold ambitions of the Government’s five-year forward view for mental health are achieved?

Theresa May: I am pleased to say that, in fact, what we see—far from the impression that is given by some of the comments from Opposition Members—is that, since 2009-10, around 750,000 more people are accessing talking therapies and 1,400 more people are accessing mental health services every day, compared to 2010, so that is up by 40%. But my hon. Friend, who I know has a particular interest and a particular expertise in this area, is right that we need to do more, and that is why we are continuing to invest in mental health services and continuing to increase the standards that we provide.

Greg Mulholland: Just 20 children are diagnosed with inoperable brain tumours as a result of tuberous sclerosis every year. Yet, despite earlier indications, NHS England turned treatment down for funding, despite it being affordable. Will the Prime Minister meet me, the Tuberous Sclerosis Association and families to discuss how we can get through this blockage and get the treatment that these children need?

Theresa May: I am very happy to look at the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised and to look in detail at what can be done to take that forward.

Maternity and Paternity Leave  (Premature Birth)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Steve Reed: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Part 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to make provision about maternity and paternity leave for parents of babies born prematurely; and for connected purposes.
Having a premature baby is one of the most traumatic experiences that any parent can go through. Instead of bringing home the healthy baby they had longed for, their tiny baby is put inside an incubator, fighting for its life, surrounded by tubes, wires and bleeping monitors. Instead of holding their baby close, these parents can only watch as their baby struggles to breathe, dependent on life support and intensive care. This can go on for weeks and months before a baby is well enough to go home. The stress, anxiety and worry lead two in every five premature mums to suffer mental ill health. Parents fall into debt from the unplanned expense of daily journeys to hospital, overnight accommodation or eating in expensive hospital cafes.
One mum told me her baby spent three months in intensive care, and that time was all taken out of her statutory maternity leave. So her baby suffers twice: first, from the serious health complications of being born too soon and, secondly, from having less time at home with mum and dad—vital bonding time that can affect a child’s development for many years to come.
I spoke to another mum who told me that once she had gone back to work, her employer would not give her the extra time off she needed to deal with her  premature child’s frequent illnesses. She lost her job, and her family lost that vital extra income. I spoke to a dad who had to go back to work the day after his baby was born three months too soon and was fighting for her life in an incubator. Most people would agree that his family needed him more at that time than his employer did, but the law did not give him the support he needed to be there with his family. We should give the parents of premature babies all the support they need to cope at one of the most traumatic times they will ever experience.
I pay tribute to a Croydon mum and tireless campaigner, Catriona Ogilvy, who started campaigning on this issue after her two beautiful little boys were born prematurely. Over 100,000 people have already signed her online petition. I should also like to recognise the outstanding work of the charity Bliss, which campaigns for the rights of premature babies and their families.
It is time the law recognised the special needs of premature babies’ parents by extending their leave so that they can give their vulnerable, tiny babies all the love and care they need and deserve. This measure commands growing support in the country, it is the right thing to do, and it deserves the support of this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Steve Reed, Norman Lamb, Heidi Allen, Chris Philp, Wes Streeting, Dan Jarvis, Stella Creasy, Mr Gareth Thomas, Jenny Chapman, Lyn Brown, Heidi Alexander and Lisa Nandy present the Bill.
Mr Steve Reed accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 December, and to be printed (Bill 81).

OPPOSITION DAY - [10TH ALLOTTED DAY]OPPOSITION DAY

CONCENTRIX

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I beg to move,
That this House notes that Concentrix has not fully met the performance standards set out in its contract with the HM Revenue and Customs to correct tax credit claims, and welcomes the announcement that the services performed by Concentrix will be brought back in-house to HMRC next year; and calls on the Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the performance of Concentrix under its contract with HMRC, which includes a consideration of the potential effect on other HMRC services, take urgent action to compensate people who have erroneously had tax credits withdrawn by the company, and in doing so mitigate any adverse effect or reduction in service for claimants.
The topic of today’s first Opposition day debate affects every single hon. Member’s constituency. I have received many case studies from Labour Members, and I thank them for their hard work on this issue. I welcome the comments in the amendment tabled by Scottish National party Members; I am very pleased that we are on the same page on this issue. We have heard how constituents of Conservative Members have been affected by this scandal too. My own inbox and postbag have seen a surge in the number of anxious and distressed families needing my help after their tax credits have been stopped. I put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), and to the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee, the Work and Pensions Committee and the Treasury Committee, for their hard work in shining the spotlight on this very serious issue.
I am sure that Members will assist the Minister by illustrating their own cases, but I will begin by outlining a shocking yet typical case study brought to my attention recently. The lady in question is a single parent with three children and a job, although at the time of her exchanges with Concentrix she had just had a baby and was on maternity leave. This lady had been accused on two separate occasions of living with an undisclosed partner. On both occasions, she had never met the person. The first time, she was accused of living with a man who turned out to be the former tenant of the housing association flat that she now lives in. This was sorted out fairly easily. We can imagine her shock, though, when only months later she received another letter accusing her of living with another undisclosed partner. When she phoned Concentrix, she was told that she was living with a woman of whom she had never heard. The lady pointed out that there was absolutely no truth in that allegation and sent all the requested documentation, by recorded delivery, to Concentrix. She received no response. She gave birth to her third child two weeks later.
When the claimant phoned Concentrix, she was told that the documents that she had sent were not on the system, and she then received a letter cancelling her tax credits. That left her with only maternity allowance to live on and a demand to repay £4,100.
The lady in question obtained replacement documentation, after Concentrix appeared to have lost the originals, and sent a request for mandatory reconsideration, again by recorded delivery, to Concentrix. By this time, she was running very short of money and contacted her Member of Parliament for help. When the parliamentary office investigated the matter, it was told that there was a backlog of mandatory reconsiderations, so it could take six weeks for the case to be looked at.
By this time, the lady in question had been waiting for three months for a resolution to her case—that is three months in complete stress and turmoil, on the breadline, when she should have been enjoying those precious early moments of her child’s life.

Peter Kyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early on. I was contacted not long ago by a woman in a similar situation. Her tax credits were cut because Concentrix accused her of having a lesbian relationship with her sister. It took her coming to me as her Member of Parliament and calling Concentrix myself before it started to believe the truth. Is it not absurd that it takes a direct intervention from a Member of Parliament before this ridiculous company takes these people seriously?

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The term, “It beggars belief” springs to mind. Unfortunately, his case is not an isolated one.
After much chasing, it was eventually confirmed that the lady had no connection to this mystery woman. She was paid all the money she was owed, and the demand to repay the £4,100 was withdrawn.

Clive Efford: We all have examples of constituents with similar stories, but the Government are showing a complete lack of urgency. People are left destitute by these decisions, for no good reason. We want to hear the Government say that they are going to put in extra resources to expedite investigations so that these people are paid and compensated, if necessary at the expense of Concentrix.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I could not agree more. The case to which I have referred is not an isolated one. According to the Government’s own figures, the company has considered about 667,000 cases, of which 103,000 have been amended. That means that 15% of investigations have wrongly pursued perfectly legitimate tax credit claimants, and they are simply the ones who have had the strength to come forward and present themselves, including to their MPs, as we have heard.

Maria Eagle: In every single one of the Concentrix cases that has been taken up by my office so far and that has been resolved, the payment has been put back in place. In other words, they have been 100% wrong. What does my hon. Friend think that the Government ought to do about that?

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I think that the cases we have seen so far are the tip of the iceberg. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that all cases are adequately investigated, and that no one has fallen through the cracks and not presented themselves either to their MP or directly to Concentrix.

Hywel Williams: I have spoken in previous debates about Capita’s failures in delaying the payment of disability benefits to some of our most vulnerable people. It seems to me that the only difference this time is the name of the corporation involved. Is not the fundamental issue that private profit-making companies are failing to deliver critical Government services?

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I will come on in due course to the issue of the contract and how it is delivered, because there needs to be a wider investigation and discussion about that.
In 2014-15, there were no appeals against a decision. In 2015-16, there were 365, and from April to August 2016, there were 176. A similar spike is clear in the number of mandatory reconsiderations, which more than quadrupled between 2014-15 and 2015-16. It is even more shocking that that number almost quadrupled again in the period up to mid-August.

Christina Rees: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should commit to an official investigation into Concentrix’s conduct since it was awarded the contract in 2014, so that we know how what she has described was allowed to happen?

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is hard to believe that the number of fraudulent tax credit claimants suddenly increased so dramatically in those two years. What is clear, however, is that there is an ever-growing evidence base suggesting that Concentrix has been unfairly and unjustly stopping people’s tax credits, leaving them in financial difficulty, along with the anxiety that that causes.
I am pleased that the Government have accepted that the contract was not working. Indeed, they were forced to concede that point in an answer to a parliamentary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley early last month. The response revealed:
“Since mid-October 2015 there has been 120 instances where Concentrix has not fully met the performance standards set out in the contract out of a total of 1625.”
Following mounting pressure from Opposition Members, the Government announced that they would not renew the Concentrix contract when it ends in May, and that they would redeploy 150 members of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to clear the backlog of cases.

Louise Haigh: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Is she aware that it was not actually until October last year that the Government started monitoring the performance of Concentrix, as was revealed to me in a parliamentary answer just a couple of weeks ago? That shows exactly why they have removed the contract now, because before that they did not even know whether Concentrix was performing the service standards laid out in it.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. A whole section of my speech is devoted to particular clauses in the contract that may or may not have been enforced by HMRC and the Government. I will come on to that in due course.
Labour welcomed the announcement that 150 members of staff would be redeployed and that the contract would not be renewed, but we still had serious concerns that Concentrix would continue to handle cases and  that the Government had not stated that they would bring the operation back in-house. Following further pressure from Labour and the Public and Commercial Services Union, the Government backed down and PCS confirmed last week that the operation will, indeed, be brought back in-house, with Concentrix staff in Belfast being transferred to HMRC.
We of course welcomed that action, but it does not even begin to address the wider issues. How did this situation arise? When did the Government first become aware of it? What action did they take? How will they ensure that it does not occur again? Most importantly, when and how will the victims be compensated? Media reports were surfacing as far back as 2015 in relation to erroneous tax credit decisions pursuant to the contract, and, as I have outlined, the figures indicated an unusual spike in appeals. The red flags were there and they should have been acted on.
I would like to direct the Minister to the contract between HMRC and Concentrix, which provided a number of tools that the Government had at their fingertips. Section I3.1 of the contract provides that where HMRC is concerned with the delivery of service, it can investigate. Was HMRC concerned, and if so, when? If the Minister cannot answer just yet, I will, to help her to pinpoint the information, illustrate further machinery in the contract that would have helped the Government and HMRC to find out about any problems pretty swiftly. Section E7.1 and schedule D provide for reviews of the contract’s effectiveness. Schedule D4.1 states that “prior to…Go Live”, HMRC would work with Concentrix to establish and agree a “robust Governance Framework” including contract management, communications, quality and assurance, payment risk management, performance management, change control and, most importantly, reporting. Will the Minister confirm the details of that “robust Governance Framework” for the benefit of the House?
If the Minister cannot do so, I can reassure her that fall-back options were still available. Schedule D12.1 states that HMRC would have full access to individual cases and, further, that Concentrix was under an obligation to let HMRC observe its working methods. Pursuant to that provision, were individual cases reviewed by HMRC, and did HMRC investigate the methods used by Concentrix? If so, how often did that happen and what were the findings of those investigations? It is clear that the Government had the tools that they needed to monitor service delivery, but perhaps they simply did not use them. The Minister will confirm in due course.
If the Government had found failings after exhausting the quite reasonable dispute process in the contract, they could have exercised the break clause found at section G3 by giving only three months’ notice. Will the Minister confirm whether and when that was considered, and tell us the outcome of that consideration? If, however, her answer to all my contractual questions is, “I don’t know,” I would ask whether she is really sure that HMRC had the capacity to monitor the contract effectively. She will be interested to know that PCS is due to publish a report on HMRC shortly, which suggests that
“the department is at breaking point…staff are hugely demoralised, 25% want to leave the department immediately or within a year and the department scores below average in all of the measures on the Civil Service’s annual staff survey.”
The report does not paint a happy picture.

Tristram Hunt: My hon. Friend is making a forensic case. Behind these facts and figures are very real human cases of people, particularly women and single mothers, who are being absolutely hammered by Concentrix. I have constituents who are going hungry, and whose children are going hungry, because of the incompetence of Concentrix. That is what we need the Minister to answer about.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; he is 100% correct. This is not simply a case of rapping Concentrix on the back of the hand. These contractual failings have caused real human suffering, and the Government need to address them urgently.

Richard Arkless: Is the hon. Lady aware of the spikes in such claims that she talks about arising in the week before conference recess and in the days following, when Concentrix was stripped of the contract? We all know what is happening here: drilling down into the contract to avoid exit penalties. Will the Government shed any light on that?

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I hope that the Minister will address the hon. Gentleman’s question in her speech because we all want to hear the answer.
Several provisions in the contract relate to payment by delivery. The head of the National Audit Office stated in June 2015:
“While its supporters argue that, by its nature, Payment by Results offers value for money, these contracts are hard to get right, which generates risk and cost for commissioners…the increased risk and cost may be justified, but this requires credible evidence. Without such evidence, commissioners may be using this mechanism in circumstances to which it is ill-suited, to the detriment of value for money.”
Under schedule A6.1 of the contract, HMRC required Concentrix to deliver, over the duration of the contract, some £1.03 billion in savings in annually managed expenditure. I appreciate that the contract used estimates to forecast potential savings, but given the model, how could anyone have been certain about the position without a crystal ball? In answer to parliamentary questions, it was revealed that total savings in annual managed expenditure were £2.3 million in 2014-15, £122.3 million in 2015-16, and £159.5 million in 2016-17, to mid-August 2016.

Yvonne Fovargue: Does my hon. Friend agree that these savings were made by my constituents facing a similar situation—100% of them have had their benefits paid back—going to food banks for the first time in their lives? The place-based team in Platt Bridge has seen a spike of some 50 families going to them because of problems with their tax credits.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: My hon. Friend’s intervention highlights the human impact of these contractual failings. My constituents have asked me for the addresses of food banks and whether parcels could be delivered to them because they were too ashamed to be seen as struggling by their communities. To put people in such situations is an absolute disgrace.
Total savings of £284.1 million have been made since the commencement of the contract in November 2014. Anyone can see that the leap from £2.3 million in 2014 to £159.5 million by mid-August 2016 is excessive. Does  the Minister therefore believe that there was simply a massive increase in fraud in the system, or does she agree that the contract was granted in the absence of a firm evidence base to justify the risks associated with an agreement based on payment by results?
As I said, there is a human impact and a human cost; it is not simply a case of slapping Concentrix on the back of the hand and saying, “Let’s all move on.” We are talking about the Government’s duty to preserve justice being abandoned as a result of the profit motive established by the contract. The risks were real human risks—families being forced into destitution, anguish and despair, with all the associated pressures on an individual’s mental health.
Earlier this year, the Social Security Advisory Committee noted that the payment model could create a conflict of interest. It recommended that the National Audit Office should examine the contract to ensure that it included appropriate safeguards to preserve justice for the claimant. At that stage, there was no investigation, but the Labour party has since written to the NAO and received the following response:
“My team has carried out some preliminary work to look into the issues. Their view is that the contract between HMRC and Concentrix merits further investigation.”
I am pleased that the NAO will investigate, but the Government must carry out a full and transparent inquiry of their own. Our motion calls on the Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the performance of Concentrix and HMRC’s contract with the company, in terms of both the adequacy of enforcing all the contractual terms, and the suitability of a payment-by-results model for delivering such a service. I would add that the NAO confirmed last year that the Government’s payment-by-results schemes accounted for at least £15 billion of public spending. It has stated that neither the Cabinet Office nor the Treasury monitors how payment by results operates across government.

Kate Green: My hon. Friend is making a detailed case about the defects of the contract, including in relation to payment by results. Does she agree that the problems with that model were exacerbated by the fact that when people had a problem with their tax credits being withdrawn, they had to complain to Concentrix—they had to go back to the decision maker—and there was, naturally, no financial incentive for Concentrix to unwind a wrong decision?

Rebecca Long-Bailey: My hon. Friend is right. Sadly, however, when many people tried to complain to Concentrix, all they received was a dull engaged tone, so they did not get very far.
Will the Minister assure the House that she will go beyond the scope of the motion and investigate such contracts more widely? She should consider putting measures before the House that will prevent the incorrect application of payment by results. I fear that Concentrix is just the tip of the iceberg.

Chris Law: I have just looked at how far back payment by results goes. Will new Labour, or old new Labour, take some responsibility—payment by results was introduced in the English NHS in 2003-04—and condemn it roundly in the Chamber today?

Rebecca Long-Bailey: We can all learn lessons by reviewing the handling of payment-by-results contracts. I hope that the Minister will consider those experiences when she conducts a review of the delivery of such contracts.

Kevin Foster: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sammy Wilson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rebecca Long-Bailey: No. I have one paragraph left before I finish.
I want to conclude by speaking about the victims of these terrible systematic failures. They did not deserve to face the hardship they have endured, and they must be adequately compensated for their losses. Will the Minister confirm that they will be compensated? On what basis will they be compensated and what is the timeframe for that action? Will she confirm that, in addressing the problem and bringing services back into HMRC, she will mitigate any adverse effect on or reduction in service for complainants? I ask her to keep an eye out for the PCS report because it is a real eye-opener. I know that the Minister has experienced terrible cases on her own doorstep. She has seen the effects at first hand and seems to be very empathetic. As such, will she issue an apology on behalf of her Government for the distress and hardship that has been caused? That is the very least our constituents deserve.

Jane Ellison: During the past few weeks, there have been a number of debates in this House about the quality of service provided by Concentrix in helping HMRC to counter fraud and error in our tax system. This is an important opportunity to debate the issue again, and I hope to go a little further in providing the House with information.
It is right that we have debated the issue because during the past few months it has become clear that Concentrix, despite the best efforts of the majority of its frontline staff, was failing to meet the standards we expected and, indeed, that we had specified in its contract. This meant that many of the people whose tax credits were being investigated—we have heard about them in the speech by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and in interventions, and they include my constituents—have been caused needless frustration and distress in resolving their cases. I suspect we will hear more examples as the debate unfolds. I intend to address the specific points in the motion, but as the hon. Lady accurately speculated, I may need in due course to write to her about aspects of the contractual arrangements, for reasons that may become obvious as I go through my speech.

Frank Field: Before the Minister leaves the human suffering aspect of this debate, may I welcome the speed with which she has responded to the letter and memoranda of cases that I, like other Members, have submitted to her? If we are not only talking about learning lessons from the contract, may I ask how we can quickly get compensation to the people who have been adversely affected? Will she give an undertaking today—she may have such an undertaking in her speech—  that people whose benefits have been cut by Concentrix will be informed of the hardship fund that she has established so that they can quickly apply for help?

Jane Ellison: The right hon. Gentleman is right to anticipate that I will touch on that issue. I will reflect on his point. I do not know about the arrangements for being proactive in telling people, but there are arrangements in place. When I get to that point, he can let me know if he does not think they are adequate.
Given that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have made such efforts to support their constituents during recent weeks—the human aspects of this issue are absolutely uppermost in our mind today—I should bring the House up to date on the action taken to rectify the situation. As I informed the House last month, we decided on 13 September not to pass any new cases to Concentrix. Instead, it was intended that it should concentrate on resolving outstanding cases. HMRC staff stepped in to reinstate a quality customer service, such as making sure that people could once again get through on the phones. We know how critical it is for people to be able to get through and have their voice heard.

Stephen Doughty: On 14 September, when the Minister answered an urgent question in the House, she told all our constituents to phone the number they were given. One of my constituents phoned the line that day and waited for ages to get through, only to be told, “Because of all the complaints you’ve been making, we’re getting sacked”, and the phone was put down. Does she agree that that added further to the already deep distress that people were feeling, and that it is not acceptable?

Jane Ellison: Of course it is not acceptable—not at all. I would add that, as hon. Members may be aware, the opening hours of the MPs’ phone line have for some weeks been extended to cope with the larger number of calls coming through that route.

Louise Haigh: In her response to that urgent question, the Minister reassured the House that queries would be dealt with within four working days. We know that that simply is not the case, and many of my constituents have been waiting for weeks to hear back from Concentrix or HMRC about their tax credit award. Will she update the House about the deadline for dealing with these cases?

Jane Ellison: I will come on to that, but the hon. Lady has provided me with an apt moment to be clear about what I said on that day. I said that once we had established the facts of the case, people should be paid within four working days. Clearly, some cases are complex and need further details to be provided. In response to the urgent question, I said that once we had established the facts, an automated process would authorise payment to be made within four working days. That is the timeline to which HMRC is working.
As I have said, it is absolutely critical that we get the right information, establish the facts and get payments started again. To that end, HMRC took back from Concentrix 181,000 incomplete cases, and staff have been working hard to resolve them. I can update the  House by saying that 178,000 of the 181,000 cases have already been finalised, which represents 98% of them. HMRC has already written to the people concerned in the other 2% of cases, and it should conclude those cases by the end of this month. I want to place on the record my thanks to HMRC staff for their efforts in that regard. HMRC staff are also taking on reviews that are requested of any decision made by Concentrix.

Chris Law: It is startling that 98% of cases have been resolved within four weeks. Is there any evidence whatsoever that there were grounds to pursue people over their tax credits in those 98% of cases, or was this a bogus fishing expedition, as all of us in the House are likely to believe?

Jane Ellison: It is important to recognise that when a case is resolved, it means that a conclusion has been reached based on the facts. I cannot give the House the breakdown of cases in which payments have been reinstated, cases in which there was in fact an error in the claim that had to be corrected, or indeed cases—a very small number of them—in which claims were fraudulent. The point is that the cases have been resolved according to the facts provided and in the knowledge of the person concerned. We may be able to provide a breakdown at some point, but I am not in a position to do so today.

Kate Green: The House would find it especially helpful to know to what degree Concentrix was steered by the Government towards looking for undeclared partners, and to what degree the contract incentivised Concentrix to jump to conclusions?

Jane Ellison: I will come on to that.

Sammy Wilson: rose—

Mark Durkan: rose—

Jane Ellison: No. I really must make some progress—you may not indulge me too much more, Mr Speaker, if I give way again—but I will see whether I can take further interventions later.
As hon. Members should be aware, anyone who wishes to challenge any changes made to their tax credits has a right to request a mandatory reconsideration of their case. As of the start of this week, HMRC had received more than 26,000 such requests. Staff have already reviewed and resolved more than three quarters of them, and they are up to date with the Concentrix reviews. As I have said, that means that the cases have been resolved in accordance with the facts; it does not necessarily mean that there was a problem in each case. However, at least such cases have been resolved, and closing the remaining cases will of course be a priority.
That gives the House a sense of the necessary steps being taken to fix the immediate problem: restoring quality customer service, resolving people’s claims and checking that the right decisions have been made. But I know that hon. Members have been worried about people falling into hardship if their claim has been incorrectly withdrawn or reduced due to errors. That has quite rightly been the source of many of the questions we have been asked. I reassure Members that a system is in place to support anyone who contacts HMRC in such circumstances. They will be helped to request a review of the decision taken—the so-called mandatory  reconsideration that I have just mentioned. Those in hardship will then receive a payment of £100, normally on the following day, while their review is being handled.

Matthew Pennycook: On that specific point, my constituent Katy Holness successfully challenged an erroneous Concentrix investigation. HMRC wrote to her saying that she would have £100 compensation but warning her that that £100 might in itself trigger an overpayment. What does the Minister say about that?

Jane Ellison: It is very difficult for me to comment on a specific case, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details I will ask HMRC to comment on it. We held a further drop-in on 19 October, and if the House feels it would be useful to hold another such Member drop-in for cases such as that to be resolved face to face, I am very happy to arrange one. If hon. Members are aware of people in hardship—I know many are—they can bring that directly to our attention. In fact, I am grateful to all those Members who have already taken action of that kind and attended the various drop-in sessions I have organised in the House. I remind everyone that there is a special hotline for MPs to raise issues and seek information, and we have allocated extra staff to make that service available over extended opening hours. We will address any such cases with the greatest of urgency.
We are making some progress towards at least putting an end to the distress and worry that some people have regrettably faced in recent times. Mechanisms are in place to make sure that anyone in hardship as a result of uncertainties or mistakes will be supported. Those two things have been our top priorities.

Maria Eagle: Will the Minister tell us where the duff information that has been acted on by Concentrix has come from? One of the key things about these cases is that the information upon which people’s claims have been cancelled has been almost universally poor and nonsensical. Where have those data come from?

Jane Ellison: Most of the data that both HMRC and Concentrix are working from are the sort of data Members would expect companies and HMRC to be using in this regard. Concentrix makes some reference to credit data. Because there are so many tax credit claims, a lot of the work on pointing to where there might be errors is based on the history of where there have been substantial errors over time, and those individuals and people—

Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Ellison: Not just at the moment—I must make some progress.
Particular individuals in particular circumstances are more prone to error. Over the years that tax credits have been running quite a substantial picture has built up of where error is more likely to exist.

Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Ellison: No, I am sorry, I am going to make some progress.
We have been working—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) says the information is duff, but there are a lot of cases of error, and some of fraud, in the system. It is not the case that all the information is, in her word, duff—far from it. I will come on to mention the figures involved, but all right hon. and hon. Members know that there are times when people give the wrong information; that is mostly because of error, but sometimes because of fraud.

Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Ellison: I will just make a bit more progress, then I will bring the hon. Gentleman in.
We are working hard to address the wider issues, many of which have been alluded to. I will move on to the three main points in the motion. We agree that Concentrix’s performance fell below the standards required in its contract. I do not want to ignore the millions of pounds’ worth of savings it has helped to deliver for the taxpayer, which might not otherwise have been achieved, but when the level of customer service is so far below what we expect, it is right that we take action.
First, then, as set out under the terms of the contract, payment to Concentrix will be cut in response to its failure to adhere to the standards required. Secondly, as HMRC announced on 13 September and I confirmed the following day, its contract will not be renewed beyond its end date in May 2017, nor will any further procurement exercise for tax credit checks be taken forward at that time. Thirdly, I can confirm that HMRC is in discussion with Concentrix to agree a negotiated early exit from the contact.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jane Ellison: I will take some interventions, but before I do I must say that, as the House would expect, while those commercial discussions are ongoing I cannot provide full details of the negotiated early exit; however, I expect it to be finalised shortly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jane Ellison: I will give way to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), because he has been waiting a long time.

Sammy Wilson: Although Members accept that cases of hardship have been created, does the Minister also accept that in a written answer to the House she indicated that Concentrix was meeting its 75-day service level, had an average answer time of six minutes for phone calls and was making decisions within 23 days, and that of the 660,000 appealed cases that went to HMRC, only 280, or 0.6%, were upheld? Does she accept that not all of the blame goes on Concentrix, which in many ways met its targets but is now being made a scapegoat?

Jane Ellison: I have said, both in reply to the urgent question on 14 September and in my opening remarks today, that front-line Concentrix staff have been working hard to resolve these issues. The problems of a contract like this, and of getting through on the phone, are never usually the fault of the person you finally get through  to. It is right to say that people have been working hard. I suspect the hon. Gentleman represents many of the people who work there.

Kevin Hollinrake: I also welcome the statement that we are terminating the contract with Concentrix. That is absolutely the right thing to do. I have a number of constituents who have suffered these problems. Mr and Mrs Young from Malton provided evidence that they were married. Despite that, Mrs Young was identified as unmarried and living in Whitby on her own. Members of Parliament have the emergency hotline—I have used it—and people can get emergency hardship payments. Does the Minister welcome that and should we make it more publicly known that those measures are available for people in hardship?

Jane Ellison: That is exactly right, and today’s debate is timely as it allows us to focus on that. I am now going to give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who has done so much work on this matter.

Louise Haigh: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—she is being very generous. As we have heard, the contract altered last year. Will she confirm how the contract was altered last October, and that it was altered because Concentrix was unable to make enough money out of it before then?

Jane Ellison: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will write to her on that. As commercial discussions are ongoing it would be best to write on something as detailed as that, and I am happy to do so.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I thank the Minister for giving way, as I know time is precious. I appreciate that she cannot divulge the terms of the ongoing negotiations for the termination of the contract, but will she commit to coming back to the House to make a statement as soon as those terms are finalised? Will she provide the information that she can obtain—for example, when the dispute process was first examined and the outcome of that process? We are at the very end of a contractual process, and simply want to know what the timeline was.

Jane Ellison: Again, those are matters I will return to, in part because there will be a number of examinations of this situation—the National Audit Office has already talked about the work it will do. I will come on to that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jane Ellison: I will take one more intervention. I have not taken one from—

James Berry: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Ellison: Well, I have not taken one from my hon. Friend, but I will take one from the Scottish National party and then I will progress to the end of my speech.

Neil Gray: I understand, with the challenges coming from the Opposition Benches, why she wishes to outsource blame purely to Concentrix, but this Government wrote the contract to incentivise   Concentrix’s behaviour and, as confirmed by the Economic Secretary last week in Westminster Hall, sent the personal data to Concentrix to investigate—

John Bercow: Order. We are tremendously grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I feel that he has surely concluded his intervention.

Jane Ellison: Far from saying that this is all Concentrix, I think there are lessons to be learned all round. I should signal now that, because I think there are lessons to be learned all round—for HMRC, for Ministers and certainly for Concentrix—the Government do not intend to divide the House on the Opposition’s motion. I want this to be an exercise in understanding the problems and learning the lessons. I will take one more intervention, for balance from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), and then move on to the end of my speech.

James Berry: I have two Concentrix cases from single mothers, one of whom was required to disprove a relationship she plainly never had with a former tenant of her house, evidence she could not possibly provide. Does my hon. Friend agree that what is important now is that the Concentrix contract has been ended and a system for investigating mistakes and a hardship fund have been put in place? That is what is important.

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend rightly brings us back to the human factor. He is right to highlight that the heart of what we want to do is to get people back in payment, where they should be, and to relieve hardship. I will now move quickly towards the end of my remarks. Mr Speaker has been very indulgent.
Among the discussions happening at the moment, HMRC has agreed to the transfer of Concentrix staff to HMRC. Concentrix has begun consulting its staff on this point and anyone transferring to HMRC will be supported through further training to help us deliver a quality public service.
It is also right, as the motion suggests and the shadow Minister challenges, that we look long and hard at what went so wrong with Concentrix’s performance. Not only do we owe that to all those who were caused worry or distress as a result of these failures, but it is also of huge importance that we learn from what happened and prevent any similar issues arising in any future contracts across government. That is why HMRC will be looking at how the contract with Concentrix was managed. It accepts it has lessons to learn. It has given evidence to one Select Committee already and will be giving evidence to at least one other—learning lessons and undertaking analysis of the claims.
Members will be keen to see an unbiased, independent assessment. As has been alluded to already, the independent National Audit Office, which scrutinises public spending, has announced it will be conducting an inquiry into the Concentrix contract. HMRC will work and co-operate with the NAO very closely to support that inquiry. The investigations will undoubtedly include, as the motion suggests, a consideration of the knock-on effects that may have been caused to other services provided by HMRC. As I have outlined, HMRC has needed to deploy extra staff to address the problems encountered, but I reassure the House that it is currently managing  the increased workload effectively. Again, that is a testament to the efforts of its staff. It is also a reflection of the flexibility HMRC possesses. It is a large organisation capable of moving staff around quickly and dealing with peaks of demand, which it is accustomed to handling at various points in the year.
During the debate we have touched a number of times on the point about mitigating suffering. As I set out, our first course of action is to ensure that we get people’s tax credit claims back on track. HMRC is working hard to get the information needed from claimants to put anyone entitled to tax credits back into payment, including paying any arrears to which they are entitled. In parallel, HMRC is taking forward any requests for reviews of Concentrix’s decisions. Indeed, many decisions have been overturned. I have made inquiries and it is fair to say that, largely, they have not been due to original errors, but have followed the provision of additional information that has been obtained through the process of the mandatory review. So many of these problems have been caused because people did not, or were not able to, respond to the first timetable they were given. They have now provided that information—the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked about this earlier—and we have been able to reassess their claims.
We have also made it a priority to address urgent cases of hardship through the usual mechanisms, but I will look at the point made by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. If anyone has been caused undue distress or financial loss following errors or wrongdoing by Concentrix, they should contact HMRC. Such complaints will be taken very seriously, with a thorough examination of all the evidence. Where mistakes have been made, HMRC will not only make sure claimants are now being paid correctly, but pay compensation where appropriate.
It may be helpful for colleagues to know that I have asked to be told on an ongoing basis the issues that Members are bringing up with HMRC. Someone used the phrase “early warning signal”. Members’ complaints—Members from both sides of the House have been assiduous in representing their constituents—are a very good early warning signal for when things might not be right.
In conclusion, it is undoubtedly the case that there remains too much fraud and error in the tax credits system. It is a complicated system and it is very easy for many honest people to get it wrong. Error and fraud stood at £1.37 billion in 2014-15, so it is right that the Government—any Government—are determined to spend taxpayer money sensibly and sustainably, and take action to address that. We want to ensure that those who are entitled to tax credits get them, but, as we all know, it is vital we prevent overpayments that will then need to be paid back. We have all seen the enormous distress that this causes to vulnerable people. Often, just through not supplying the right information and getting muddled up about a form, people end up owing a lot of money and that causes a lot of distress.
Progress is being made. Error and fraud in the tax credit system are now close to their lowest levels since its introduction in 2003. We are not going to take a step back in our efforts to ensure we have a fair tax system that tackles non-compliance in all its forms. We announced an extra £800 million in funding last year to do so, but  that has always got to be balanced by the need to keep providing both the financial support and quality customer service that people, whatever their income level, are entitled to. On this occasion, the balance was not appropriate. It is for that reason we have taken the action I have outlined to put the situation right. We want to support people who are struggling with their claims and we want to reinstate payments to those who are entitled to them.
I am sure that many of the comments that have been made so far, and will be made in the debate that follows, will be fair. I will not agree with all the points made, but there has been much fair comment. For that reason, we will not oppose the motion. Above all, we want a fair outcome for everyone affected and we want to learn important lessons to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again. We must ensure that these important public services work for the most vulnerable in our communities.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the next hon. Lady, it will be obvious to the House that there are a great many people who wish to speak this afternoon. We will start with a voluntary time limit of eight minutes for Back-Bench speeches. If that does not work, I will impose a time limit of eight minutes. This time limit, voluntary or otherwise, does not, of course, apply to the spokesman for the Scottish National party, Mhairi Black.

Mhairi Black: The Scottish National party will fully support Labour’s motion. I thank the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) for making the case so eloquently, but I think it is worth while reiterating some key points.
HMRC gave the contract to Concentrix, with the
“additional capacity to review and correct tax credit claims that are potentially based on incorrect information.”
One of the main tasks of Concentrix was to find people with an “undisclosed partner” and to see whether they were claiming the benefit as a single person but actually living with others. That is where the problem really begins. Concentrix spent a considerable amount of money putting out “fishing” letters to try to catch people claiming fraudulently. In a written answer on 7 September, the Treasury Minister said that Concentrix sent out 381,000 letters to tax credit claimants requesting proof of single status; 254,000 letters asking for details of hours worked; and 312,000 letters asking for evidence of childcare use.
Concentrix’s logic was that, unless people replied with the appropriate evidence, their tax credits would be stopped. However, despite all those letters apparently being sent out, thousands of people had absolutely no idea they were being investigated. Quite often, they did not know that they were under investigation, or that their tax credits had been stopped—

Patricia Gibson: Given the clampdown on supposedly fraudulent claims with these fishing letters, would it not be good to see the same rigour applied to aggressive corporate tax avoidance?

Mhairi Black: I agree entirely. That is something I will touch on later.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Lady also accept that, although 1.5 million cases were referred to Concentrix, it whittled them down to less than a fifth of the cases sent by HMRC? Therefore, had it been in HMRC’s control, a lot more people might have been affected than were actually affected.

Mhairi Black: Another interesting point is that, when the Work and Pensions Committee looked into the matter, we discovered that Concentrix had subcontractors —three, I believe—but it was not allowed to go into any detail about who they were or what their methods were. I hope that, at some point, the Government will answer those questions.
Like the constituents of many other Members here, all the constituents I dealt with did not discover that their tax credits had been stopped until they went to collect them from the bank and discovered that there was nothing. When I started to look into the matter, I realised that this is truly the most ridiculous level of incompetence that I have ever heard of. People were accused of being in relationships with dead tenants 70 years their senior. They were accused of being in relationships with some of their own children. In my constituency, Scottish flat numbers seemed to be a major issue for Concentrix because it could not get its head around the fact that flat 1/1 and 1/2 were across the landing from each other and were not the same house.
The best one, though, has to be the case of RS McColl. To provide a bit of perspective, RS McColl is a corner shop that is as common in Scotland as WH Smith is in England, yet people were being accused of living with this mysterious Mr McColl because their flat was above an RS McColl shop. At no point did anyone in Concentrix or HMRC think, “Wait a minute. This Casanova is getting about a bit.” This would be funny—until we remember that we are talking about people’s livelihoods and their survival.
As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I took part in the evidence session where we heard from claimants who had had their tax credits stopped. This is where we have to remember the human costs. We first heard from a woman called Marie, a mother of two who went six weeks with no support. She did not discover that her benefits had been stopped until she went to the bank. She said that she genuinely could not fill her cupboards with any food and she spoke of the shame of having to take her kids to a food bank and having to rely on the charity of others to be able to eat.
A woman called Sarah had no hand and suffered chronic pain every day of her life. She had two young kids, who were both under the age of five. She spent a combined total of 19 hours on the phone waiting for someone from Concentrix to answer. When she finally did get through to someone, the person at the other end of the phone just kept saying, “I don’t know; sorry about that. You need to phone back and try to get someone else.” She was asked to write a letter. She explained she could not write due to her disability, only to be told, “Well, sorry, you’ll just need to find someone else to write it”. At that point, that woman broke down in tears in front of the Committee. She was overwhelmed  with emotion when she spoke about the fact that she had to look at her kids knowing that she did not know where the next meal was coming from.

Paula Sherriff: Does the hon. Lady share my frustration about the fact that a constituent a mine who was down to her last £5 was told to send documents to Concentrix by recorded delivery? She then had to decide whether to feed her child or to send those documents. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that that is absolutely horrific.

Mhairi Black: It is actually completely disgusting for this to be happening under the watch of Government. It is also worth remembering that, when we talk about these horrendous individual cases, they are not unfortunate or rare examples—it is happening throughout the UK. Whoever made the music that is played when people are put on hold by Concentrix must be making a fortune, because my entire office can whistle it off the top of their heads, we were kept on hold for so long—and that was on the MPs’ hotline. The fact that people who do not have access to that hotline are sometimes having to spend up to 90 minutes on the phone is ridiculous.

Philippa Whitford: I wonder whether other colleagues have shared the experience of my staff. Concentrix just flatly refused to deal with them, saying that it would speak only to the MP. We are only there one day a week, and that might be when it is not easy to take the history from the constituent.

Mhairi Black: It is also worth remembering that the number people were asked to phone was an 0845 number, so it cost an absolute fortune. I think that anyone in the Chamber would find it cost a fortune, so imagine how much pressure that will put on someone who already qualifies for tax credits, but has been told that they will not be receiving them.
When we in the office did get through, we were told that people had to apply for mandatory reconsiderations, only to discover that the contract also delegated extensive decision making powers to Concentrix, including the processing of mandatory reconsiderations. So this private company has to investigate itself to find out whether it made the correct decision. We should bear in mind the fact that the contract states that it should be paid only on the basis of results. The entire contract has been a shambles; it has been ludicrous from the start.
As if all that were not bad enough, during the evidence session with the Select Committee, Concentrix admitted that 90% to 95% of all mandatory reconsiderations were upheld. The company was openly admitting that it got it right only 5% of the time. These are the people who have applied for an appeal. How many people have had their benefits stolen from them who have not gone for a mandatory reconsideration?

Jane Ellison: It is kind of the hon. Lady to let me intervene. It is worth saying that often the reason the mandatory reconsideration succeeds is that the information previously requested has been supplied to that timetable. It is not fair to say that the reason is because the previous decisions were always wrong. Sometimes the information requested has at that point been supplied and then the correct claim can be instated.

Mhairi Black: I appreciate the Minister’s point, but we need to remember that HMRC and the Government were supplying information to Concentrix, so a lot of the fault lies with the Government.

Neil Gray: I was talking earlier about Government responsibility—before Mr Speaker rightly encouraged my pithiness. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way for the UK Government to take proper responsibility is not only by providing substantial and appropriate compensation, but by offering full apologies to those constituents who were wrongly dealt with by Concentrix and this Government?

Mhairi Black: I could not agree more.
Concentrix was saying that 95% of mandatory reconsiderations were upheld, but in the next panel before the Select Committee, the chief executive of HMRC said that it was not as bad as 95% and that 73% were upheld. He said that as though it was some kind of problem that—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mhairi Black: I want to make some progress.
It is such a farce that the Government and Concentrix cannot even agree on how many times they got it wrong. It is ridiculous situation to find ourselves in. Meanwhile, people are having to go to food banks and to go home to their crying children, who do not want to eat Tesco’s 80p Bolognese for the fourth time that week.
I appreciate that mistakes can happen in all walks of life, whatever job one is in, but the reality is that, when the mistakes are made by Government, it is people who suffer—and often it is the most vulnerable people. Although we wholeheartedly support Labour’s motion, we have to highlight the fact that the Government have to bear some of the blame. The contract itself states that HMRC is required to monitor the exercise and remains responsible in law for the actions carried out by the contractor. I do not believe that the Government have done that adequately.
The most damning thing in this entire saga is that Concentrix was under the impression that its contract was going to be renewed. Only after the media cottoned on to this and began writing about it, and after 670-odd formal complaints were put in by elected Members to HMRC, did the heat begin to be turned up and the issue begin to be taken seriously. The vice-president of Concentrix said he was initially given only 15 minutes’ notice, before he went on a flight, that the contract was not going to be renewed. He pleaded with HMRC to be given an hour in order to inform staff. An hour was the difference between Concentrix thinking it had a contract that would be renewed and the contract being taken away because of its shambolic work. The level of incompetence is truly incredible. We cannot ignore that and place all the blame on Concentrix.
So what needs to be done now? The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the £100 hardship payment, but in all my cases constituents have been told that the £100 will be taken back off their benefits. That has to be looked at. If we are all being told that at the same time, that is clearly an issue.
As for how we should deal with the overall problem, the buck has to stop with HMRC. The Government must bring services of this kind back in house, and they must once again be the Government’s day-to-day responsibility. Saying to a private company “We want you to make £1 billion worth of cuts, but we will only pay you on a results basis” is a recipe for disaster. We have to legislate so that this is never allowed to happen again. One of the main reasons that it occurred in the first place was the lack of resources and Departments’ inability to cope. The Treasury must reconsider its ongoing policy of downsizing HMRC, especially when we are in the midst of such a cataclysmic problem.
As has been said by a number of Members today, and on another occasion by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), the Government must apologise to people. There is no shame in apologising and admitting that you got it wrong. The Government need to regain a bit of trust from the people who have been hurt. Concentrix is by no means innocent of any of what has happened, but ultimately it was HMRC that signed the contract: it happened on HMRC’s watch.
Conservative Members will probably roll their eyes and stop listening when I say this, but the biggest problem that I have with issues like this is that the Government seem to be perpetuating an overarching culture of blaming the poor. We treat people with suspicion from the start, and the onus is always on individuals to prove that they are not thieves or frauds. Pressure is put on people who have enough to deal with already. I have sat through many debates of this kind, and I have heard certain groups—disabled people, pensioners and those on low wages—being constantly targeted. We end up pitting them against each other. We tell young people “You cannot get a job because pensioners are living too long”, and we tell the disabled “Sorry, we cannot afford to pay these amounts any more, so we will have to cut £30 from your benefits.” All the while, at the heart of all that, there is a small group of people who are wealthier than ever before—and I have to say that I include every elected Member in the Chamber in that category. We were all given an 11% pay rise; who else was? Who in the outside world has seen that kind of pay rise?

Stephen Doughty: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mhairi Black: I am going to finish soon.
Recently, Philip Green gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee. Here is a guy who has lost £570 million worth of pensions, 22,000 pensioners have been affected and 11,000 jobs have gone, yet he is still able to go off to the Greek islands on his £100 million yacht. That is not the kind of society that many us want.
Let us not forget that, despite this whole saga and despite all the horrendous stories that we are hearing, Concentrix will still walk away with millions of pounds as a result of the work that it has already done: I believe that the most recent figure is £27 million. This is a culture for which the Government must be responsible. Although only 0.8% of benefits are fraudulently claimed, the general public seem to think that one third of them are. The Government have not just a responsibility to  look after people, but a responsibility for the language that they use—for the rhetoric—and also for the culture that they set.
I know that what I am saying will probably not convince Conservative Members. This may be an unconventional suggestion, but I want them to go and see a film called “I, Daniel Blake”, which will give them a cold and sobering view of the reality that so many people are experiencing. The film rightly makes it clear that, when we debate matters such as this, we are not talking about service users, claimants, or national insurance numbers on a Concentrix computer screen; we are talking about citizens—your citizens. We are talking about people here, and they deserve to be treated with a lot more dignity and respect than they have been.
In her first statement as Prime Minister, Theresa May made this promise in Downing Street:
“If you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise… When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty but to you. When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you.”
My last question to the Government is “When?” There are people with absolutely nothing. When will the Government prioritise the people who need them most? Lord knows, those people are losing both patience and hope.

Kevin Foster: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). I welcome the debate, and the opportunity that it gives us to talk about the issues involved in the Concentrix contract, although it is worth noting that it is a month since our exchanges in the House about the Government’s intention to cancel it.
I believe that our goal should be to ensure that the people who pay for the benefits system through their taxes can be confident that fraud and error are kept to a minimum. However, that went badly wrong in this instance, and examples in my constituency reveal some of the places where it went wrong. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South gave us the interesting example of a “philandering shop” in Scotland. In my constituency, someone had supposedly moved in with a bloke living down the road. They rang Concentrix to try to deal with the matter and get some answers, but found that it was quicker to walk to my office with the phone—while still on hold—and sit there for about 20 minutes while we made them a cup of tea and enjoyed the “hold” music that they were listening to. To prove that this had happened, I took a photo of the phone as it went through the hour on hold in my office.
To be fair to Concentrix, it did only take four minutes to tell my constituent “Actually, you should ring HMRC”, but that was the only part of the customer service that was particularly speedy. The only other remarkable thing is that, given the level of concern and the number of issues that have been raised by Members and others, Concentrix was itself surprised to be told that the contract would not be renewed.

Neil Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our constituents deserve an apology for the way in which this matter has been handled not just by Concentrix, but by his party’s Government and HMRC?

Kevin Foster: The focus should be on what went wrong, waiting to see what the National Audit Office comes up with—I shall say more about that shortly—observing the reaction to that and dealing with the issues, rather than getting into a debate about whether the gesture of an apology should be made. That said, I am pleased that the Government are not seeking to nit-pick the Opposition motion, that we are not going to divide the House, and that, effectively, we will support the motion. That, I think, speaks for itself.
In the light of the problems that had been raised with me, I welcomed the Government’s action in making it very clear that the contract would not be renewed. It is over a month since the last new case was sent to Concentrix. I am also pleased that HMRC is moving in to resolve many of the issues.

Patricia Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Foster: Will the hon. Lady give it a moment? I shall make some more progress, for now.
I said that HMRC was moving in. It should be noted that that organisation has had its own customer service issues in the past. In fact, in the next half hour my fellow members of the Public Accounts Committee will be discussing and examining its customer service. There have been some welcome improvements recently, but many Members who are present today will have had their own experiences of sitting and waiting to get through to the “hotline”.

Sammy Wilson: It is not surprising that when HMRC was challenged to specify the number of cases it had dealt with that had involved errors and how long it had taken it to respond to those errors, it could not give the figures. We cannot even make a comparison between HMRC’s performance and that of Concentrix.

Kevin Foster: This afternoon we received a fairly detailed report produced by the National Audit Office on HMRC’s annual report, which is being discussed by the Public Accounts Committee and which goes into some depth about HMRC’s performance and customer service standards. It can be read in comparison with what we have heard about Concentrix. The PAC is also discussing the tax gap, and the need to ensure that HMRC is performing as we would expect it to in ensuring that the taxes for which we legislate in the House are paid by those who are required to pay them. I genuinely welcome the fact that the National Audit Office will be investigating this matter, and, in that context, I think that some of the comments that have been made today may have been slightly premature.
I was going to intervene on the shadow Minister when she was commenting on our having an independent and fearless inquiry commissioned by the Government. I was struggling to think how more independent and fearless an inquiry could be than a report by the NAO, which is an arm of this Parliament, not of Government. It produces its reports independently. Yes, it will liaise with Treasury officials to ensure that facts are agreed when coming to its conclusions, but ultimately the Comptroller and Auditor General and his team answer to this House via the PAC. It has never held back from making comments, no matter how difficult and challenging for Government Departments, where required. The shadow Minister might wish to intervene and tell us how she felt  that another inquiry would be different from that, but I think the right way forward is to get the NAO to look at this and bring a report that can be scrutinised fully and in depth in this House from a team of subject experts who understand how HMRC, the DWP and the benefits system work, and who owe a duty to Parliament, not to the Government. I am sure the depth of information they bring forward will inform future debates on this subject.

Chris Law: Is it not clear, then, that the approach over past years of reducing HMRC staff numbers must stop, and stop today? The current Government programme to reduce staff numbers from 55,000 to 35,000 is short-sighted, and from the evidence we have heard today it is clearly time to reverse that.

Kevin Foster: I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the HMRC report being discussed this afternoon by the PAC; it might be worth his attending the session if he gets the chance. It is worth noting that with new leadership, which has been needed for some time, HMRC is starting to turn around its customer service, by moving more staff into dealing with post, for example. There is some evidence that the customer service is improving, therefore, which is welcome, although I know that some of these assertions will be robustly tested by a number of Members, including the hon. Gentleman’s party colleague and PAC member the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell).
It is vital that the investigation is thorough and that we look at what comes out of it. I welcome the Minister’s saying that there is an ongoing negotiation about concluding the contract early. We cannot go into the details of that today for obvious reasons, but I hope the work being done to bring this whole sorry tale to an end will be shared with the NAO as part of its inquiry.
One of the conclusions to be drawn is that it is clear that people have been caused pain and suffering that they should not have been caused. People have been subjected to allegations that were flagrantly untrue: the “philandering shop”; the person living down the road; someone who has been dead for some years. We should think about the way the contractor went about things—sending letters with the contractor’s logo that looked very similar to official Government or HMRC letters. We might have debates about whether in future the symbol of the Crown and HMRC should be used on a letter sent by a contractor.

Philippa Whitford: Many of the constituents who came to me did not appear to have received a letter at all. A letter with some strange logo on it might not register as being what it is about and therefore might get overlooked.

Kevin Foster: I understand that point, but the evidence from my constituency case load is that it cut both ways. Some people saw a logo that looked like it was from HMRC and wondered what the letter was about. This matter might require further inquiry, and we should consider the information that the NAO will bring forward. The NAO does not just look at the sums. It is not just going to work out how many people got paid for what. It will also go into the detail around the customer service, and certainly in previous reports it has been extremely thorough when doing so.
I welcome the overall tone of the Minister’s response to this motion, and I welcome the fact that the Government took clear and decisive action to bring this contract to an end and are continuing to do that and to prevent more people from having to experience the issues many Members have highlighted today. I hope the monitoring will go on because, as we have seen with past issues to do with HMRC, an in-house solution is not necessarily a magic bullet to achieving amazing customer service. We have only to look at past debates on HMRC’s performance to see that. I welcome some of the tone of today’s debate, but it is now absolutely clear that we need to resolve the outstanding cases, let the NAO do its work and then form our conclusions based on the evidence it brings to us.

Kate Green: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). It is very useful to have the Minister’s detailed and constructive responses on the operation of the contract, but I want to open my remarks by drawing attention to the policy issues that underlie the difficulty we have got into.
For many years we had a social security system designed and operated in a way that served to target, judge and stigmatise single parents in particular. I thought we had stopped doing that, but certainly as far as the experiences of my own constituents are concerned that group of claimants has been particularly affected by the way this contract has been designed and operated.
Of course, single parents will in most cases, although not always, be women—women who take responsibility for raising their children alone. There is a real question for Ministers to answer about the policy design that led to that group of women being so damaged and targeted by the operation of the contract. When I raised this point with the Minister earlier, she did not really address it, but I hope the NAO report will look at it—not just at the way the contract operated, but at how it was designed and what behaviour it incentivised.
I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Torbay that nobody condones fraud in the benefit system—it undermines confidence in the system and denies access to the system for those entitled to benefit from it—but when the system starts to make assumptions about intimate relationships and living arrangements, which are intrinsically intrusive matters, it is incumbent on the Government and their agents to handle that with great sensitivity and care. It seems pretty clear from all we have heard about the operation of this contract that Concentrix did not bother to do that. Instead, perhaps steered by Ministers or perhaps because of the payment-by-results model—about which the Social Security Advisory Committee warned of dangers early on—Concentrix appears to have taken the flimsiest of evidence at face value in order to determine that people must be living with undisclosed partners. In many cases, such as those of some of my constituents, without any further meaningful inquiry their tax credits would then be stopped.

Sammy Wilson: While Members have rightly identified the incentivisation issue, does the hon. Lady accept that Concentrix acted on only a fifth of the 1.5 million cases  sent to it by HMRC, and that in the mandatory review, it reviewed 95% positively? That militates against the incentivisation argument. In addition, when cases went to appeal, fewer than 0.005% were overturned, which would indicate that Concentrix was well aware that it had to abide by certain rules in dealing with these cases.

Kate Green: Assuming that there might be fraud in a fifth of cases and looking into them is a very high proportion, because we know, and the Minister acknowledged, that fraud in the social security system is very low. I am not sure I completely accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, therefore. I have concerns—and the whole House has expressed concerns about this in this debate, as has the SSAC and the NAO—that a payment-by-results model has to be designed very carefully if perverse incentives are to be avoided. In this instance that was not achieved.
As a result, constituents of mine and of Members across the House were put in the impossible position of having to prove a negative—to prove that they did not live with somebody, often somebody they did not know, and sometimes someone who did not even exist. Cases that I have seen include: a woman being asked about an undisclosed partner who turned out to be a previous tenant of the property who had moved out nine years earlier; a constituent who was accused of living with a previous tenant’s son; a constituent who was told that her landlord was in fact her undisclosed partner; and, in perhaps the most bizarre case of all, a constituent who appeared to have been told that her mother, with whom she lived, was her undisclosed partner.
Evidence that was provided to Concentrix by my constituents was too often ignored. Sometimes Concentrix had given the wrong address for the evidence to be sent to, or, as the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned, the letters did not look very convincing. One constituent drew my attention to the fact that many of the words were misspelled and that the letters were full of errors. She drew the overall conclusion, when Concentrix got in touch with her, that she was in fact the victim of some sort of scam. Sometimes evidence could not be produced. In two cases that I have dealt with, constituents were asked to submit utility bills, even though they were living with their parents and the utility bills were not in their name. We have also heard that when constituents have tried to deal with Concentrix on the telephone to explain their circumstances, they repeatedly received poor customer service or were unable to get through.
I consider it troubling that, even when there was clear evidence of Concentrix being in error, my constituents were told that they would have to go through a formal process of mandatory reconsideration—an extra barrier—when in fact Concentrix should immediately have said, “We have made a mistake, we will get the situation put right.” The Minister has told us of the commitment to get tax credits into payment within four days of an investigation being concluded. Of course I understand that time needs to be taken to look into the circumstances of a claim, but we need an overall time limit for these investigations. We cannot leave constituents waiting for weeks and weeks without these matters being resolved.
The consequences for all our constituents have been extremely harsh. Housing benefits have been stopped. In one case, I had to intervene to prevent constituent from being threatened with eviction. Debt has been  mounting. We have heard about women being forced to go to food banks for the first time. One mother in my constituency who was unable to pay her nursery fees was told to remove her child from the nursery. In another case, children have had to be sent away to live with relatives because the mother was no longer able to feed them or to heat their home.
Another policy point to which I draw the Minister’s attention relates to how especially damaging this contract has been in terms of its impact on children. The Government really have to face up to the fact that policies and their execution must be underpinned by an obligation to prioritise the wellbeing of children. In this contract, that clearly did not happen. It is iniquitous that the brunt of this chaos should have been borne by women and children. An equality impact assessment of the policy and its execution ought to have addressed that fact, but the Minister did not mention that this afternoon, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) did not mention it in the Westminster Hall debate last week either. I really hope that, in summing up the debate this afternoon, the Minister will tell us what equality impact assessment was carried out, and what adjustments were made to the policy as a result.
This has been a disgraceful catalogue of error and mistreatment. I am pleased that the contract has been terminated, and I am very pleased that the National Audit Office is to carry out full review of what went wrong. I echo the questions asked by colleagues around the House. What compensation is going to be paid to our constituents who have borne the brunt of the erroneous management of the contract? What penalties will be imposed on Concentrix? What has been the overall cost to the taxpayer of the mismanagement of the contract, including the cost of the spike in appeals?
I echo the concern that it is at best philosophically inappropriate for intrusive inquiries into people’s personal circumstances to be carried out for commercial gain and rewarded by results. I ask the Minister to review whether it is appropriate to put someone through the formal mandatory reconsideration process when a simple error has been made by the contracting company and when dealing with the error there and then would have been a fairer and more effective way to proceed. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that her fundamental thrust is to look at what lessons can be learned overall. Will she undertake to return to the House to report on those lessons and tell us how she intends to apply the learning that has been gained?

Richard Graham: Today’s debate is primarily about the HMRC contractor, Concentrix, the delivery of its contract, its customer service and the impact of its work on those receiving tax credits who were wrongly suspected of fraud or error. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made some valid points about her constituents who have been affected, and other hon. Members have spoken equally movingly about some of theirs. The debate is about more than that, however. It is about the relative value, efficiency and service of third-party contracts as against the direct delivery of services by the Government or by Government agencies. It is also about how the Government—in this case, HMRC—reacted to the  unexpected crisis when the mandatory reconsideration appeals rose by 95% in August while the “success” in handling calls dropped off a cliff. It is about how quickly contingency plans were put in place, and what those plans were. It is also about whether the structure of the incentives and the contractor’s commission were appropriate for this type of public service delivery.
It is too early to offer definitive answers today, while the internal investigation is still going on. However, the inquiry by our Work and Pensions Select Committee and the measured comments from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury today offer some clues. To this, I add my own experience as an MP dealing with constituents who have been affected, and the observations that we made in the Select Committee.
The first point has to be that the goal of reducing HMRC’s estimates of fraud and error was the right goal for the Government to have. The 2014-15 estimates, which are the most recent ones, suggest a net £1.2 billion of fraud and error on tax credits, potentially involving 500,000 people. The Government cannot spend billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on welfare without ensuring that it is spent properly, just as we expect the Department for International Development to ensure that its accounts are correct and its money is spent in the right way. We also expect the European Union to account correctly for the money it receives from its taxpayers, including our own.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) is absolutely right to say that rich people, and every company, should pay the right amount of tax. I would add that this is not a case of either/or. It is a case of both. The Government were absolutely right to increase HMRC’s resources for collecting the right amount of tax from those who have tax to pay and to ensure that the right amounts of welfare benefits are received by the right people. It is worth noting that the £270 million recovered through this programme will make a decent contribution to reducing fraud and we must ensure that it is made available to the people who need it most.
Secondly, there has been a cost during this process to our hard-working, not-well-off constituents. In each of the dozen or so cases that I or my office staff have replied to, there has been a degree of hardship and, in some cases, considerable hardship. HMRC’s response to such cases is therefore important. My sense, from our Select Committee inquiry, is that HMRC’s chief executive, Jon Thompson, is looking at how quickly HMRC has responded. It is true, however, that the moment HMRC took a grip, beefed up resources and put extra staff on to the MPs’ hotline, my office—and, I suspect, those of other MPs—was able to resolve these tax credits cases very fast. I am unsure whether all the cases were resolved within 48 hours, but all were done within three or four days, and some within a few hours. Indeed, the Work and Pensions Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), said that he could not
“recall an experience where, thank goodness, the Executive, whether Government or delegated, has acted so quickly when they have seen a crisis.”
That should be on the record. It is credit to how HMRC responded. In the evidence we took from affected people, there was one particularly gracious “thank you” to HMRC for resolving one individual’s crisis so quickly.
My third point relates to contracts to third parties and the incentive system within them. The National Audit Office recognised this as a complex area, and the jury is still out on how successful the system has been over the past few years. HMRC’s chief executive responded to my question on that with an interesting remark about
“the balance of incentives on third parties in these kinds of contracts”
which
“is essentially based on commission earned.”
He asked:
“Is that the right kind of incentive mechanism for this kind of public service delivery?”
It is a valid question, and other Members have mentioned it. The HMRC chief executive reflected on it. I also have no doubt that the NAO investigation will discuss whether bringing this sort of contract in-house would ensure better quality control, more experience of handling citizens who are on tax credits, and possibly even a reduced cost. From the evidence to the Committee, it broadly looked like Concentrix will have been paid about £27 million by the time its contract comes to an end on £270 million of fraud or error identified, implying a 10% commission. That feels high, but the figures are probably hypothetical at this stage and will need to be confirmed in due course by the investigation.
In all of this, the Government, HMRC and Concentrix have been absolutely right to start with an apology to those who have suffered. When mistakes are made, it is important that they are recognised immediately. HMRC and Concentrix started the Select Committee sessions by making their apologies—the Minister has added hers on more than one occasion—and that was important. There is the issue of compensation for those most affected, and the fact that, as the amendment states, the Government should “ensure that those people”—people on tax credits—
“are treated by HMRC in future with dignity and respect.”
That should happen all the time for everyone with whom the Government deal, particularly where monopolies such as HMRC exist. We all have a duty to treat our constituents with dignity and respect. That is what happens most of the time. My experience is that HMRC is helpful on every occasion with constituent issues.
In conclusion, today’s debate has been measured and the tone has been reflective and thoughtful across the House. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned. It is correct that tax collection is done, that welfare benefits are spent in the right way on the right people, that mistakes are responded to rapidly and that agencies such as HMRC should hold contingency plans. Poor service should be treated and amended as quickly as possible. I therefore welcome this opportunity to discuss some preliminary thoughts on the lessons that can be learned and I look forward to the NAO report in due course.

Eleanor Laing: Although the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke for precisely eight minutes, the previous speakers did not, so I must now impose a formal time limit of seven minutes.

Corri Wilson: The Government have made it clear that the burden of austerity must be borne primarily by the most disadvantaged in our society. They made that clear through their repeated assaults on the welfare state, in their victimisation of the disabled, in their system of sanctions and in their attacks on benefits for our young people. They have made it clear that tax credits cost too much and are a drain on the public purse. They made it clear in their handling of the Concentrix contract that the suffering and hardship caused by this fiasco is not their concern. The Government did not seem to care about the indiscriminate targeting of single parents, the “fishing” letters, working parents being forced to give up their jobs, or families being forced out on to the streets as they lost their homes.
Strangely, none of those reasons were cited as a contributing factor to the withdrawal of the Concentrix contract. The statement given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury explicitly said:
“Despite the best efforts of the staff manning the phones, Concentrix, with the high volume of calls in recent weeks, has not been providing the high levels of customer service that the public expect and which are required in its contract. HMRC has therefore given notice that this contract will not be renewed beyond its end date in May 2017.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 904.]
It seems that it was all about call handling. I am sure that I am not alone in having a list of constituents who are seriously out of pocket from waiting to speak to someone at Concentrix, but providing call waiting times as the main reason to ditch the contract is ludicrous.
This Government devised the model to target low-income families indiscriminately. The contract awarded to Concentrix was based on payment by results, creating a clear conflict of interest and encouraging bad practice. It was this Government, through HMRC, that supplied Concentrix with 1.5 million claimant records flagged as high risk—claimants like my constituent, Lauren. Lauren is the mother of two and a prime example of someone whom the system has failed, finding herself at the centre of a perfect storm. She suffers from anxiety and panic attacks and, despite having a line from her doctor, lost her job for being off ill. Her employer did not pay her statutory sick pay, and she was told that she would have to wait at least two weeks for employment support allowance. In a bizarre twist of fate, she found that both her working tax credits and her child tax credits had been stopped.
When Lauren first came to my office, she had no food and no money for gas or electricity. She had called Concentrix 48 times that day and had run out of credit on her phone. Rather than the state providing Lauren and her children with a safety net in their time of need, Concentrix had left them near destitute. Why? What was the key factor in determining that Lauren was one of the 1.5 million high-risk claimants? Someone had glanced at her file and decided that she could not possibly be working 16 hours a week and be paid so little. They had calculated her yearly income and then divided it, coming to the conclusion that she must have been working 15 hours a week, ignoring the fact that Lauren had spent a month out of work the year before—a change in circumstances of which she had diligently notified HMRC. A cursory glance was all it took to  turn this young mother’s life upside down at a time when she was at her most vulnerable. My staff and I have been deeply affected by the number of cases in recent weeks in which people have been plunged into utter misery. We have felt sheer frustration at not being able to get a quick resolution. I doubt whether a single person on the Government Benches has ever experienced going without food.
We can stand here all day and trade stories like Lauren’s, and the Government can dish out platitudes and pat themselves on the back for acting so swiftly and decisively on the Concentrix contract, but that cannot detract from the fact that families have been driven further into debt and poverty by Concentrix’s actions. Families have been forced to beg for food by the actions of HMRC. Families are being forced to choose between heating and eating by this Government’s policies. It is time for the Government to accept their role in this fiasco and to step up and take some responsibility for the carnage they are causing in people’s lives. They must apologise for the hardship and suffering faced by people such as Lauren. They must look again at the ongoing policy of downsizing HMRC, leaving staff overworked and demoralised. They must introduce a freephone number for claimants and take on the costs of seeking mandatory reconsiderations. They must legislate to amend the compliance regime in respect of annual declarations and high risk renewals.
Earlier this month, leading figures from this Government stood up at the Conservative party conference right in front of a background that read:
“A country that works for everyone”.
Let us see them match their policy to that sentiment and step back from this destructive and failing drive to impose austerity on the many while allowing riches for the few. Those on the Government Benches should take a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book and start treating people with fairness, dignity and respect.

Stephen Doughty: I apologise for the state of my voice, but it is important that I speak in this debate on behalf of the many constituents who have contacted me about, and who are suffering as a result of, this scandalous Concentrix shambles. I commend the Opposition Front-Bench team for calling the debate, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) for her forensic analysis of what the Government could have got right when enforcing this contract and the problems that have led us to this point. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who has done so much work to drive the debate forward. I also thank the staff in my office. We all have fantastic constituency staff who do so much to assist our constituents, and I particularly want to thank Shira, Lily and Ruba for the work they have done in dealing with a number of distressing cases involving individuals who have been in deep hardship and have been greatly upset. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, the people affected have often been single mothers. I also thank Citizens Advice and other local advice charities, which have been faced with a deluge of these cases.
I wish to reflect on a few of these cases. In one, a single mother had a long-standing claim suspended after Concentrix said that she was living with another named woman in her rented property. It was suggested that a third woman was also living at the property, but both were actually previous tenants of the home, one from as far back as 2010. The information had come from the electoral register, even though my constituent had lived in the property only since 2014. The claim was eventually reinstated. Another case involved a single mother and homeowner who had her claim suspended after Concentrix said that she was living with “a couple”. She is the sole owner of the property and had provided evidence to demonstrate that. Again, the claim was eventually reinstated.
The citizens advice bureau referred the case of another single mother to us. Her award was stopped pending an investigation. She was left with no income and we had to refer her to food banks, which is a deeply distressing experience for anyone. Her son is diabetic and requires a specialist diet, so that contributed to her stress and unhappiness. Again, that claim was eventually reinstated. A further case involved a single mother in work who had both her tax credit claims stopped after she was told by Concentrix that her half-brother, who had once sent post to the property, was in fact her partner. That case has not been resolved and she has been without money since August. I have two to four such cases, and I question some of the assurances that we have heard about how long it takes to resolve these cases. I have written to the Minister about a number of cases and we are contacting the helplines. I hope that she will assure us that she will fast-track some of these deeply distressing cases.

Jane Ellison: I am happy to give that assurance. Once again, I urge Members with particularly long-running and difficult cases to get in touch, and I will make sure that HMRC prioritises them.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister for those comments, which will provide some reassurance. We will certainly follow up cases with her office.
All the cases have common themes, one of which is their impact on single mothers and families with complex needs, often including children with health problems. These people are suddenly being left without food and money. Individuals with mental health issues are facing additional stress and anxiety. People have contacted me in desperation, by every possible means. Often they had not realised that their MP was the person to go to, but I have been contacted on Twitter and on Facebook, and by email and by phone. These people have been through the agony and desperation of not being able to get through on the helplines and, in some cases, they have found that the phone has been put down on them, as I outlined earlier. Obviously that is completely unacceptable, and I am glad that the Minister recognises that.
We need to deal with the problem of the final responses that people receive. Those responses often do not explain why the claims were stopped or reinstated, leaving constituents unsure about whether the same thing will happen again, and they do not give an apology. I appreciate what the Minister has said today, but we need to apologise directly to the individuals and families who have been affected. I have talked about the long  delays, but an inability to speak to someone directly about the situation creates frustration and distress. We have heard examples of people receiving contradictory and confusing correspondence, and that adds to the pressure and concern that they experience. We have had to refer many constituents to food banks, which causes deep distress to anybody who has to go through it. These people, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in that terrible situation at the end of these erroneous investigations.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in many cases this has happened simply because, as the Minister indicated, Concentrix was following the processes, guidance and requirements of HMRC? The worrying thing is that if the situation does not change, it will not matter whether we change the contract between Concentrix and HMRC, as the same things will happen again.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that shows why we need a full independent investigation into what has gone wrong. Such a situation applies not just to Concentrix. We can look at what has happened with Capita, with contracts such as that for Clearsprings asylum accommodation, and with Atos. There is a common theme across Government contracts whereby things are contracted out but then not properly monitored and followed up. The people who suffer in the end are some of the most vulnerable and the poorest. A common thread is that some of our constituents in the most difficult situations are affected, so the Government need to take a wholesale look at whether they should even be contracting out these sorts of services. When they should be, and there is a legitimate reason for doing so, the Government need to monitor and follow up what is going on, down to the level of the experience that individuals face. That is the real thing that matters in all this. These people often have extremely complex lives and face many pressures.

Philippa Whitford: The hon. Gentleman mentions the problems with Atos and now we have Maximus. I know of a case of someone who has been waiting for a work capability assessment for almost six months. Can we not foresee that we will have a similar debate in another half year’s time?

Stephen Doughty: I would not be surprised if we were to have that debate. I am frustrated by the Clearsprings case. People can see companies making a huge profit out of these contracts, and individuals making hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of pounds, as a result of providing the most shoddy and inappropriate services. People suffer, but these companies often get away without so much as a slap on the wrist, and often with payments at the end. When people look at this, and particularly at HMRC, they say, “We are being chased down for these relatively small sums, completely erroneously, through these fishing expeditions, but then we see sweetheart deals with major corporations over their non-payment of tax.” This is not just about tax credits. Small businesses in my constituency come to me with complex VAT cases and say, “It is one rule for those at the top and another for us.” They are often put into severe hardship and face deep complications as they try to resolve these cases.  By the time people arrive at the doors of Members of Parliament, they are often in severe financial difficulties, be that as an individual or as a business.
I want to be absolutely assured that the Minister will not just hold a full investigation into this case and resolve the issues for individuals in my constituency and others that we have heard about today, but will raise in government the wider issue of the contracting out of such services and how they are monitored because, in the end, it is the people of this country who suffer. The situation is not acceptable. This has been an absolute disgrace and it has to stop.

Gerald Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. In common with other hon. Members, I have been appalled by the complaints that my office has received about Concentrix from worried constituents who have faced extreme hardship following its actions. I understand that a provider may want to conduct checks to ensure that money is provided to the right people, but stopping money to parents in this way while checks are carried out is wholly unacceptable. As many Members have said, Concentrix’s action has caused extreme hardship to many of my constituents and people across the country. People invariably use this income to provide food and essentials for their children, and it is totally unacceptable for them to be without that money for a period of time. As we have heard, the situation has resulted in many families relying on food banks—that has certainly been the case in my constituency—and in some cases people have been going without. This is utterly shameful.
It is not as though Concentrix has been quick about some of its checks; the majority of people seem to have had money withheld for two months or longer. How can people, many of whom are already on a low income, be expected to cope for long periods of time? One of the many cases my office staff have dealt with relates to a constituent who had her tax credits stopped because it was believed that she had an undeclared partner—we have heard similar stories this afternoon. Following much stress, and my constituent having to provide extensive evidence that she did not have an undeclared partner, it transpired that the basis of the action by Concentrix was out-of-date records of a previous tenant at the address. In a similar case, a constituent had her tax credits stopped because Concentrix required evidence that the tenant lived alone, as a random check on the electoral register had shown a previous tenant. It transpired that that previous tenant was now in prison. In yet another case, a constituent wrote to Concentrix to confirm and provide evidence that she was a single parent, yet it still took two months to investigate and reinstate the claim.
I could highlight a good many more cases, but I accept that a number of Members wish to contribute to the debate and that many of these cases are similar. The common factor is the lack of understanding or compassion on the part of the contractor engaged by HMRC. We know that many payments were stopped but that the decision was successfully overturned in around 90% to 95% of cases that went to appeal. Although Concentrix must bear its share of responsibility for the hardship that people have faced in recent months, HMRC, too,  has to bear its share for allowing the situation to become such a mess. Does the Minister accept responsibility for the lack of scrutiny, and what lessons is HMRC learning from this debacle?
Concentrix’s failures have laid bare policy failures by the Government, because it certainly appears that, in this whole episode, there has been a deliberate attempt to target single parents. Again, if HMRC had been monitoring the contract, the situation might not have accelerated to the extent that we have seen. Lessons must be learned. Actions by Concentrix have caused extreme hardship and have completely lacked in compassion. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury outlined, many of these cases have involved real suffering. People in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and across the country deserve answers, and I look forward to hearing them from the Minister today. I thank the Minister for supporting the motion and for not seeking to divide the House this afternoon.

Mark Durkan: Like other Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) for introducing the debate and setting out her points so cogently, particularly in relation to some of the details of the contract itself, and the opportunities and responsibilities that that contract gave to HMRC to better deal with the problems that did emerge. Both HMRC and the then Financial Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), must have been aware of those problems, given the number of representations and complaints that were coming through from Members, and the range of questions that were being asked. None of those questions was properly dealt with, and all the complaints were treated fairly dismissively along the lines of young Mr Grace—“You’ve all done very well!” There seemed to be no problem whatever as far as that Minister was concerned. I am glad that, today, the current Financial Secretary to the Treasury is indicating that she will take a more personal interest in how these details are handled in future.
The motion could have been wider. It could have put into its sights the role and rationale of HMRC itself, as well as the responsibilities of Ministers. This debacle happened in the context of a progressive rundown in the capacity and character of HMRC, which then led to it outsourcing bits of work. It is the nature of that work and outsourcing that really raises questions about the mentality in HMRC.
In a written answer yesterday, the Minister confirmed this to me:
“during the course of the contract, HMRC delegated a total caseload of 2,209,500 cases for high risk renewal checks by Concentrix.”
It was HMRC itself that decided that more than 2 million cases could be appraised as high-risk renewals. When Concentrix received those cases, 1,635,676 of them were not the subject of further investigation for fraud or error, which means that it screened out 74% of the caseload that had been identified by HMRC. I ask Members to think about what we would have been dealing with if there had not been that screening. We would have had multiple versions of this problem—the  adversity endured by our constituents; and the absurdity in the grievous conjecture that was being used against people.
The high-risk cases referred to Concentrix were placed in three main risk categories, and those three categories were decided by, and designed by, HMRC, not by Concentrix. The first was undeclared partner, which accounted for 1,398,908 cases. The second was work and hours, which accounted for 564,983, and the third was childcare, which amounted for 245,609 cases. Now that this work is returning to HMRC, I hope that Ministers will ensure that there is a change of culture there so that there is no longer such hostility and suspicion towards HMRC’s customers.

Sammy Wilson: The incentive for Concentrix was that it got paid only for those cases in which, eventually, it could be shown that there was genuine error or fraud. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if that incentive does not rest with HMRC, the situation could become even worse, because HMRC will have no incentive to screen out any of those cases?

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about future performance. Many of us have had our own difficulties when dealing with HMRC about tax credits. Certainly in my constituency, I have had some particular issues in relation to the plight of cross-border workers, whose position is constantly mishandled by HMRC. At times, it seems that there is no end in sight to the difficulties.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question, I note that payment by results is the outcome after the mandatory reconsideration stage, so some of the arguments about the degree of incentivisation have to be measured against that point. Let us remember that what drove the cut-off of tax credits for most people was the application of the compliance requirement of 30 days. Therefore, officials using the HMRC system and the HMRC standard that was contracted to Concentrix sent letters to people saying, “Unless you return information within 30 days, your benefit will be stopped.” Most of the stops were made because information was supposedly not received within 30 days. That is why many cases were overturned on mandatory reconsideration, because by that stage the information had been provided.
That raises questions for us as legislators in the House. Where does the 30-day rule come from? It was introduced in the Tax Credits Act 2002. We have here a gross misapplication by HMRC of the terms of that Act, especially in terms of the high-risk renewal regime, the high-risk change of circumstances regime and the annual declaration. The Minister did not address the fact that thousands of people had their tax credits stopped this summer by HMRC directly. That had nothing to do with Concentrix. HMRC was terminating benefits because people had not returned their annual declaration on time. Compliance grounds were being used directly against people by HMRC. When those people were cut off in August—45,000 of them in the week beginning 8 August—they naturally assumed that that cut-off was being implemented by Concentrix. They were ringing Concentrix and we as MPs were ringing Concentrix, but it was actually HMRC that had implemented the cut-off, although some of those cases might have previously been referred to Concentrix. We had the daft anomaly of HMRC handing work to  Concentrix, saying “Investigate these people as high-risk renewal claims,” while, at the same time, it decided to go against those same people on compliance grounds for annual declarations. It is no wonder that confusion, hardship and hurt was caused, and there are fundamental questions for HMRC as well.
I hope that the Minister will look at this again. She says that lessons will be learned. I hope that this will not be like Brexit means Brexit; “lessons will be learned” should mean that lessons will be learned. We hope that those lessons will be learned within HMRC itself, and that they will include looking at whether there has been particular misuse of provisions of the 2002 Act.
Regulation 32 of the Tax Credits (Claims and Notifications) Regulations 2002 states that the period of notice given for a person to submit information or evidence
“shall not be less than 30 days after the date of the notice.”
The period does not have to be 30 days—that is the minimum—but who decided that it should be 30 days? HMRC took that decision, and it passed that on to Concentrix, saying that that statute set out how the system works and how it had to proceed.
Did Ministers sign off on the 30-day period? Were they notified that those were the terms that HMRC was operating? Were they notified that those were the terms that Concentrix was operating? If we know that the 30-day cut-off was responsible—the Minister has said this herself—will it be reviewed? There is the question of whether we, as Parliament, need to review that, because some of these flaws are sourced in the legislation itself and its over-rigorous application by HMRC.
Many people have voiced their criticisms of Concentrix and its performance, and have spoken about their difficulties getting through to it. By means of this debate, we need to get through to HMRC, which is where the core responsibility lies. A culture change is needed there, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to keep an eye on that in the future.

Chris Law: I have spoken a number of times in Parliament on this subject, and every time I speak, I listen to the many stories from across the Chamber and elsewhere about individual cases. My constituency is no different in the way that individuals have been affected by Concentrix, which is contracted by HMRC on behalf of this Tory Government As I said in my early-day motion 396, HMRC’s contract with Concentrix is driving families into immediate poverty.
Let me offer the House a few examples. One of my constituents who I spoke with had only part of her address held on the Concentrix system. When background checks were run on the address, a number of people were named as living at the same property. As a result of a needless investigation by Concentrix, this person struggled to feed and clothe her children for over a month. Another lone parent was judged to have made a false claim as a single parent. Following my complaint, it was discovered that an incorrect address had instigated the investigation and, in fact, HMRC owed this constituent a considerable sum of money. Sadly, this was not uncovered  before the constituent had to give up her home due to financial hardship. Such cases reinforce the points that have been made in the debate.

Tommy Sheppard: Does my hon. Friend agree that another aspect of this shambles is the at times near-complete breakdown in communication between Concentrix and HMRC, as exemplified by my constituent, Dionne Walker, a mother of three, who supplied Concentrix with every single piece of information it asked for, only to find out subsequently that Concentrix had not passed it on to HMRC? Her tax credit application was cancelled, leaving her having to seek crisis loans and go to food banks to feed her three children for the rest of the week. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is unacceptable, and that people such as Dionne Walker and countless thousands of others are owed an apology by this Government?

Chris Law: Indeed. I hope to hear such an apology from the Minister this afternoon. My hon. Friend’s example makes the point that I was about to raise—make no mistake, many of these people are single parents, who are already struggling to make ends meet and are the target of this Government.
Evidence has now emerged that Concentrix, on behalf of this Government, sent out, over a two-year period, almost a million letters asking for information about people’s circumstances, in what can only be described as a fishing expedition to detect potentially irregular tax returns. It is up to the constituent to prove that they are innocent before tax credits are reinstated. In other words, they are treated as guilty until proven innocent. It does not end there. Reports suggest that staff at Concentrix are regularly dealing with suicidal callers who threaten to kill themselves. How desperate does the situation have to get before urgent action is taken and the contract is ended?
The social and health impacts of the Concentrix contract, on both members of the public and employees, are horrific. That has been reinforced in the recent report of the Work and Pensions Committee, which found evidence of humiliation of claimants and appalling customer service, and appeal success rates of between 73% and 95%, described as
“a terrible indictment of the original decision-making process”.
Unsurprisingly, this is not the first time that Government outsourcing has failed to meet expectations. I made the point earlier that these payment-by-results contracts go back to 2003, when Labour introduced them for NHS England. I am sure everyone in this Chamber remembers Atos, whose shambolic and cruel tests were designed to strip away benefits from sick and disabled people.
Under the contract that this Government have with Concentrix, Concentrix is paid on a payment-by-results basis—in short, commission. The more tax credit payments Concentrix puts a stop to, the more money it pockets. Our constituents, who are very often in low-paid, part-time work, find themselves at the rough end of a contract that many of us would never sign up to in jobs in our everyday lives. How different the decisions made by this Government would be if Government Members were put on payment-by-results contracts.
It is hard to believe that this Government continue to cut HMRC jobs in Dundee and right across Scotland, while at the same time privatising and outsourcing  contracts. HMRC departments, which are already understaffed, have been left to pick up the pieces and have spent months restoring backlogs of claims and errors. It is time to end this madness.
Although Concentrix certainly has questions to answer, I believe that the disastrous implementation of the Concentrix contract by the Tory Government has implications that go far beyond that specific company. This Government have created a system designed to place the burden of their failing austerity agenda firmly on the shoulders of those most disadvantaged in our society. The contract with Concentrix has not been renewed, which is a step in the right direction, and it looks as though it will shortly be brought to a close, which is good news. However, the Government need to go further.
Alongside the ongoing investigation of the Concentrix contract by the Work and Pensions Committee, an inquiry has been initiated by the National Audit Office. I welcome these developments, albeit at a time when too many of my constituents have already suffered. I urge the Government to set up a public inquiry to examine the conditions under which Government Departments award public contracts to private sector providers. Such an inquiry would offer reassurance to members of the public who are weary of hearing disaster stories from the NHS, HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions. Among the aspects that I believe deserve particular attention are how to devise contracts that ensure value for money and efficiency without allowing companies to profit by manipulating results and ignoring the well-being of people in our society; a clear statement of ethical principles to emphasise justice for individual citizens and parliamentary accountability; and representation of consumer and service user groups in decision making at all stages of formulating, awarding and monitoring contracts.
In the end, everyone in this House must remember that we are privileged to be here and serve the public. In that spirit, I urge this Government to re-examine all their contracts with private companies and ensure that dignity and respect, rather than profit and price, are at the heart of procurement.

Maria Eagle: I want to set out the experience of some of my constituents with Concentrix and their tax credits. Having listened to colleagues around the House and from around the UK, I know that it is a familiar story.
Normally, my constituents have waited five to seven weeks before they come along and see me to try to get a problem sorted. We can then get it sorted, although I do still have eight Concentrix cases that have not been resolved. The Minister said that she was resolving them all very quickly, but that is not the case. It is four or five weeks since we took up many of these cases and they have not yet been resolved, so there are outstanding cases.
We saw a rapid increase in cases from August onwards. Before that we had a drip, drip, drip of cases that went wrong, but from August something happened—something at HMRC or something at Concentrix. It would be interesting to know what it was and who initiated it, because suddenly there was an influx of cases, all wrongly  decided and all coming in in a rush. The contract has been running since 2014, so what happened in August? We want to press the Minister to tell us what caused that sudden spike in cases.
All my constituents who have come to see me are single mums with children. They have mainly been accused of having an undisclosed partner. Some have been told that they did not have childcare costs that they had claimed. Occasionally they have been told that they do not have children, when they do. Most had simply had money stopped, without receiving any prior notification. They found out that there was a problem because there was no money in the bank. When they tried to get through on the telephone they could not do so, and then they received a letter that said, “You have an undisclosed partner”, but it did not say who that undisclosed partner was supposed to be.
The letter said, “Prove that you don’t have an undisclosed partner. Send us evidence to show that you don’t.” However, without knowing who the undisclosed partner is supposed to be, how can anyone do that? Worse, when my constituents have discovered who that undisclosed partner is meant to be, it turns out to be a previous tenant of their home whom they have never met and who left years ago, or a family member, who they never imagined would be construed as an undisclosed partner because they were related. What duff information is being used to make the lives of these people a misery? I have said it is duff once and I will say it again. If Concentrix turned down 80% of the cases sent to it because it decided that there was not an issue, what kind of information was it looking at for those 80%, given the kind it was looking at for the cases it decided to act on? It beggars belief.
In all these cases, my constituents were told to prove that they did not have a partner, but no name was given—in all the cases that have been resolved so far, the determination has been reversed and claims have been put back into payment—and that seems to me to be a complete reversal of any proper burden of proof. You prove that you do not have an undisclosed partner, Madam Deputy Speaker—not at this moment, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is what these people are being told, and it is not fair. They are already in financial difficulty, which is why they can get tax credits. They are usually living on the financial margins, working part time and in low-paid work. I have constituents who have had to take their children out of childcare and are in danger of losing their job because they have been told that they do not have children.
It is taking far too long to resolve these issues. The worry and stress is particularly difficult when dealing with an unreachable and harsh bureaucracy. That is what makes this experience particularly Kafkaesque. There are secondary impacts that go beyond getting these claims right, including severe debt problems, rent arrears and threats of eviction. There are bank charges, damaged credit histories and massive mobile phone bills. It is all very well saying that these cases have been put right, but what about those ongoing impacts? What can the Minister say about putting those right?
I think that there are cases where people ought to receive compensation. It is distressing enough to have this done without the ongoing financial problems that result from it. What about control of the data that HMRC is passing on, or that it will look at itself in  future? Why are those data so poor? How is it possible that previous tenants, including those who may no longer be alive, can be suggested as undisclosed partners? What kind of quality control is there for those data, because obviously it is not working?
It is wrong for the Government to incentivise maladministration in their contracts. That, in effect, is what has happened here. I think that my constituents who have suffered in these cases have been subjected to maladministration. If they are not properly compensated, I will suggest that they make a claim to the parliamentary ombudsman because of this maladministration. The Government could stop that happening by compensating them before they have to make any such claims.
The worst of it—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on this—is that this has been specifically targeted at a population largely made up of financially vulnerable single mums who are trying to do the right thing by going to work. They are excessively impacted upon by this kind of behaviour by bureaucracies that they cannot even begin to reach. I think that it is incumbent on the Government now to compensate and apologise to those people and ensure that the information they use in future is not so poor.

Louise Haigh: We are extremely hopeful that this sorry state of affairs marks the beginning of the end of payment by results in our welfare system. It has no place there, it creates perverse outcomes, and it has ruined the lives of thousands of people. Our social security system should be there to support people in their time of need, not to allow unaccountable conglomerates to make easy money chasing the voiceless and the vulnerable. Now is the time to draw a line under the grotesque profit model in our welfare system, because that model has failed: it has failed the individuals it was set up to help; it has failed employees; and it has failed the taxpayer.
All of us have horrific stories of individuals who have fallen foul of Concentrix. In my constituent’s case, her tax credits were cancelled while she was in a coma. Rather than answering for these failures, which lie squarely at the Government’s door, Ministers have preferred to throw this hapless contractor under the bus. However, as one senior Concentrix employee wrote to me:
“Every single action we took was directly informed by HMRC and was compliant in full with their guidance… there will be no investigation because there are paper trails after paper trails showing that we have only ever followed client instructions on amending claims.”
I was pleased to hear today that that is no longer the case and that there will be an investigation, because from start to finish this has been a mess entirely of the Government’s own making, and one for which they have not yet answered.
The company that conducted the trial that preceded Concentrix, Transactis, incorrectly removed entire awards regardless of evidence provided to the contrary. Despite the alarm bells that should have been ringing loud and clear in their ears, Ministers decided to push on. It was the beginning of a pattern that is now all too familiar.
Ministers have still not answered for structuring a contract that put maximising revenue at its heart in attempting to assess error and fraud—not accuracy, not meeting quality service standards, and certainly not customer service, but making as much money as possible off the backs of the vulnerable. Ministers have not answered for the measures they included in the contract to maximise revenue. HMRC “profiled”—that is the Government’s own word—1.4 million vulnerable individuals and then unleashed Concentrix to carry out its dirty work.
We do not know—they will not tell me, despite repeated requests—what indicators the Government used to establish which groups to target. Given what we have heard today, it is clear who was in that demographic: single mothers with children. It is some measure of justice that it was women like that—thousands of them across the country—who brought this contract crashing down with their articulate, brilliant campaign.
That is not the only issue with the contract, because the process also turned the burden of proof on its head. HMRC was asking tax credit claimants to prove that their claim had not been made in error. They were asking people to prove a negative, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) explained so eloquently. The Tax Credits Act 2002 clearly states that HMRC can amend or terminate tax credit awards only if it has significant grounds for believing that they are erroneous. It does not allow them to shift the burden of proof on to the claimant to disprove that a tax credit award has been made erroneously. That led one young mother to say to me, in tears, that she felt that she was being “treated like a criminal” and that Concentrix was treating her as “guilty until proven innocent.” One mistake like that would have been unacceptable, but 11,000 people had to apply for mandatory reconsideration in the past year alone. That cannot simply be passed off as a mistake; it was the deliberate design of the contract itself.
HMRC employed a contractor with just 500 staff to target over 2 million people. That meant the company’s pressured, poorly trained and low-paid staff were being instructed to open dozens of highly sensitive cases every day, leaving the phone lines permanently engaged, as we have heard. Concentrix staff have told me that the call volumes were such that the company would have needed to triple its staff in order to answer the phones.
Astonishingly, despite the failure of the trial, despite the highly sensitive nature of the contract, and despite the sheer volume of individuals a completely untested private sector provider had been designated to pursue, we now know that the Government did not actually monitor the performance for the first year of the contract. HMRC had no idea how many performance failures the contractor was incurring. Once it started monitoring that, it soon found out: over 120 breaches in the space of just nine months; and 13 black performance failures. Ironically, HMRC is up for an award this year for analysis and use of evidence. I very much hope that this is not viewed as best practice across Whitehall.

Chris Matheson: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the chaos she is outlining will end up costing the taxpayer a whole lot more than any money that was saved in the first place?

Louise Haigh: That is a major concern, not least because HMRC has now had to allocate hundreds more staff to deal with the backlog that Concentrix caused, because this was failure on a monumental scale from start to finish. It seems that Ministers did not pay the blindest bit of notice until the scandal reached the media, because we now know that HMRC was about to renew the contract before the scandal hit.
The Government have traded on welfare as a dirty word, and now they are seeing the despicable consequences of their political attacks: single parents and families who have done nothing wrong being ruthlessly pursued by an unaccountable US firm for profit. Could this contract have been drawn up had the Government not fuelled a contemptible narrative about those on low pay and those who rely on tax credits to get by?
We welcome the fact that the National Audit Office will be investigating the drawing-up of this contract. Can we be assured that that will include the management of the contract and the profiling assumptions underpinning it? Will the NAO release any impact assessment that must have accompanied the contract? Will the Minister assure us that any compensation awarded will not be counted towards tax credit awards?

Kevin Foster: Does the hon. Lady agree that the National Audit Office is independent and works for this Parliament, not for the Government? Therefore, the NAO would structure how it conducted its inquiry, not necessarily a Minister. That is the core of what we want: somebody independent who will get to the nub of this and present evidence to this Parliament, not necessarily the Government.

Louise Haigh: I completely agree, and it is vital that this is an independent review, because, as we have heard on both sides of the debate, these problems originate from the Government themselves. However, we need to know that this information will be published, and if the NAO does not do that, we would call on the Minister to publish it alongside this inquiry.
Above all else, if the Government’s rhetoric is worth a penny, they will surely pledge to call time on contracts such as this, which target innocent single parents and families, and encourage the private sector to profit from them. That has no place in our welfare system.

Chris Elmore: Like many Members on both sides of the House, I have been inundated by constituents since the official Opposition—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh)—exposed the disgrace of what Concentrix has been doing.
One concern for me is that this seems to be a deliberate attack specifically on women—often innocent single mothers—and that is completely unacceptable. One case that was brought to my attention in my constituency involved a single mother living in a property with four flats. She was told on three separate occasions that she was living with each of the other tenants. She was then told that she was living with another tenant in the next block. Unsurprisingly, my constituent found it rather difficult to prove that she was not living with these people, particularly when she did not know the other people living in the other flats. That is not uncommon when someone is living in supported housing and focusing  on bringing up their children, which is what we would think would be the whole point of a tax credit, allowing these women to work.
The key thing to remember is that none of us who have been helping constituents impacted by this travesty has any idea how many others in our communities have been affected but have not reached out to us, as Members of Parliament. It is important to recognise that, in contrast to how the Government may view people in receipt of tax credits, the vast majority are hard working and proud, with many affected by Concentrix having suffered in silence.
Ultimately, there are two forces to blame for the scandal: Concentrix and the Government. The actions of Concentrix can be labelled only as atrocious, yet, last month, when it learned that it would no longer have the contract renewed, its response was that it came “as a significant shock”. We can only conclude, therefore, that it saw little wrong with what it was doing.
The Government are, however, ultimately to blame. We should, of course, hold Concentrix to account for what it has done, but we should recognise that the true fault lies with the Government. Concentrix acted in a way that, because of the Government contract, was based on a payment-by-results model. The Government agreed to a deal with Concentrix under which they would pay more and more depending on how many people’s tax credits were removed, so it is no wonder that Concentrix acted so inappropriately.
If the issue surrounding Concentrix was isolated, the Government might have been able to claim that this was an honest mistake. The reality is, though, that the horror stories we are hearing today are indicative of this Government. Along with the bedroom tax, ruthless benefit sanctions and a handful of other policies, the hiring of Concentrix is yet another action by this Government that has led to record numbers of people being reliant on food banks. In Pencoed, in my constituency, a food bank will be opened at the end of this month. Ultimately, the blame for there being such demand lies with the Government.
The Government have shown yet again that they treat people in receipt of social security as a resource they can harvest money from, with no concern for the consequences of their actions. They have shown that they are happy to see more and more people reliant on food banks if that will save them just a few thousand pounds.
Although we may have a new Prime Minister, the attitude towards people in receipt of social security remains the same. As yet another food bank opens in my constituency, and yet another scandal passes, I hope the Government will learn from their mistakes, as I hoped they would learn from their previous errors time and time again. I am afraid to say, though, that I do not hold out much hope.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: This has, indeed, been a very passionate debate. I would like to take this opportunity—I am sure I speak for all Members on both sides of the House—to thank our staff members in our constituency offices who have had to deal with people who have been at the very end of their tether. Many have had no training and have met  people in the most dire circumstances. I would like to place on record our thanks to all the staff of all Members on both sides of the House.
As we know, tax credits are a vital financial lifeline for many families who are struggling to get by on low wages. They allow single mothers and fathers the dignity of work, by ensuring that their income is enough to pay for rent and food and for heat for their homes. Without these payments, families have been plunged into immediate poverty, with all the financial and emotional stress that comes with coping with such a situation.
Despite many parliamentary questions and two debates, we are still no closer to finding out the facts or achieving a proper settlement to this sorry situation. At the same time, families know that their situation was entirely caused by the mistakes of others and as a direct result of faulty administrative processes and procedures, all of which must be fixed. Compensation must be paid.
I would like to refer to a particular case study. A constituent in Alloa was referred to my office just yesterday by the citizens advice bureau. Seven weeks ago, she had her money stopped without warning. She was accused of living with three different partners at the same address at the same time. Advised by Concentrix that she had been sent a letter in May—a letter she said she did not receive—she was then told the evidence she was required to submit. She submitted what she could: two bank statements and council tax statement. She was told that that was not enough. She could not afford, however, to provide the bank statements requested, as they cost £5 per statement.
The realistic timeline for Concentrix cases needs to be known. Despite the assurances I was given by the Financial Secretary on 14 September, it is still taking around eight weeks from the submission of evidence by those falsely accused by Concentrix for payments to be reinstated. That is two months without vital payments—payments that are stopped without warning and with no good cause.
On the phone yesterday, HMRC advised my office that the burden of proof remains on the individuals accused of claiming tax credits incorrectly, not on the accuser. That is contrary to the laws of natural justice and contrary to the view of the upper tribunal, which has already considered similar issues.
For the Minister’s benefit, I would like to set out a timeline for an individual who is accused. On day one, their money is stopped. They call Concentrix to find out what has happened, and they are advised of what action is needed. It can take days to get an answer. On day two, they start to collate the evidence required. HMRC stated to my staff yesterday that it required the following evidence to establish innocence after making these accusations: bank statements for a period often up to a year; mortgage proof or a rental agreement; a court or solicitor’s letter providing detail of legal separation documents; Child Maintenance Service documents; evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions or Jobcentre Plus to show the benefits claimed, if applicable; car insurance documents; home insurance documents; detailed explanation of the person’s relationship status with the person they are accused of being in a relationship with—in this case, it is three people, two of whom my constituent does not even know; and a letter from the landlord to confirm who lives at the property.
That takes us to day six, when the person sends that evidence to HMRC, if they can afford to bring it together. On day seven, the evidence arrives at the HMRC and Concentrix offices. On day 28, HMRC begins to look at the case. People in previous cases have told us that it would take two to three weeks before the evidence can be looked at, due to a backlog in processing cases. On day 56, the evidence is processed by HMRC. Once the evidence pack is opened by HMRC staff, it takes 15 to 20 days to process. On day 60, there is a positive result—if the person gets a result—as money will be paid to them within four days. That is eight weeks’ processing between the submission of documents and payments being reinstated.

Lisa Cameron: In the intervening period, many of the individuals affected have experienced grave mental health issues. I am aware of at least two cases where people have gone on to self-harm as a result of the stress endured. Does my hon. Friend agree that the targeting of the most vulnerable is not something that should be happening under Government contracts?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She has huge experience in the area of mental health. I am sure it is a matter of great concern and disturbance to us all to hear that people are resorting to self-harm.
My constituent continues to wait, as HMRC refuses to act until it has received a year’s worth of bank statements that she cannot afford to provide. HMRC did not inform her of the hardship payment. Will the Minister advise us on the guidelines with which HMRC is working in relation to the hardship payment? Is it not offered in all circumstances? Are not all people in positions of hardship once they have had these payments stopped?
In order to support those affected, we must immediately take a number of actions to remove the financial barriers to justice for these victims, and I ask the Minister to consider committing to these today. HMRC should immediately provide a freephone line for victims to use. As things stand, if someone wants to ask a question or appeal a decision, it is up to them to phone the call centre, and that can cost 10p a minute. Some callers have had to wait for hours, as confirmed in many speeches. Over and above this, HMRC should now act to provide a free call-back service for tax credit inquiries. HMRC should also meet the full cost of sending people all documents with postage-paid envelopes so that they can send back the information that is required on the basis of incorrect decisions that have been made on their part. Those changes are achievable, deliverable and fair, and should be implemented without delay. That is the right thing to do in these circumstances.
When this exercise is complete and people have the opportunity to access justice, at no cost to themselves—neither should there be—we can then move our attention on to securing full, fair and proper compensation for all victims, some of whom have lost their jobs and homes as a result of this fiasco.

Ronnie Cowan: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Like other Members, my constituency casework is full of examples  of the mismanagement of the tax credits contract. I thank my constituency team back up the road—Iain, Colin, Jenn and Louise—who have dealt with a large volume of cases, always with great sensitivity and professionalism.
Over a long period, Her Majesty’s Government have created a system that they charge Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to administer. HMRC outsources the process but not its responsibility, and this time its chosen enforcer was Concentrix. However, it is unfair to lay all the blame at the door of Concentrix staff, or, indeed, HMRC staff. The current welfare system, as designed, is flawed—seriously flawed—and while we continue to support it, the blame is ours. Far from enabling people and giving them the financial security to build their own lives, the welfare system has made life more complicated for those who need support.
Dealing with poverty is an ongoing struggle in constituencies such as mine, where deep-rooted inequality continues to stifle ambition and opportunity. Yet, as with so many other policies, my constituents are once again disproportionately affected by the UK Government’s inadequacies. We have heard excellent contributions from Members who outlined specific examples of how the tax credit contract has been so appallingly mismanaged. However, the saddest indictment of UK Government welfare and tax policy is that there are still so many people in desperate need of tax credits in the first place.
Concentrix is clearly not blameless in this situation; its faults and mistakes are well documented. However, while the UK Government may solve the problems inherent in this contract by bringing it back in-house, we are still left with the wider problem of Government services being delivered by private companies. Private companies should never be in the position of delivering vital public services. Citizens and Governments should have a direct relationship with each other. Taxpayers contribute directly to the Government, but when the money is going in the other direction, it should not be filtered through a private company before it gets to the individual.

Jim Cunningham: I agree that these human issues are far too sensitive for private companies to be profiting from. Interestingly, when I first raised this in January with the Leader of the House in asking for a debate or a statement, I was told, “Just send me information about the problem with a case.” Why did it take eight or nine months and the involvement of the BBC to finally get a Minister to the Dispatch Box to do something about this?

Ronnie Cowan: The hon. Gentleman makes his point very eloquently.
Companies bid for UK Government contracts not on the basis of how they can deliver a fairer and more equal society, but of how they can save money for the Government. Companies are incentivised to deliver these results, and ultimately their first loyalty is to owners and shareholders. By off-loading services to private companies, the UK Government and HMRC are trying to absolve themselves of responsibility when there is a problem. We have seen these problems appear time and time again. G4S, Atos and Concentrix are not names that inspire public confidence in the delivery of high-quality public services. How many more disasters is it going to take before the UK Government realise that corporations should not be delivering public services? My constituents  have no interest in Government reviews, PR exercises or ministerial statements about the issue—all they want is to be paid what they are due, on time, without the risk of its being arbitrarily removed.
The existing welfare system needs to be ripped down and replaced with something suitable for the 21st century. A couple of weeks ago, we had a debate in Westminster Hall about a universal basic income. There is support across parties for a serious investigation into this. We should stop treating the symptom and start treating the entire patient. Maybe, just maybe, the time for a universal basic income has come.

Peter Dowd: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan).
We have heard many interventions and speeches. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) talked about a fishing expedition on the part of Concentrix. She enlightened us about the real Casanova of Scotland, R. S. McColl—I thank her for that—but more importantly, the cataclysmic effect of this flawed process. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), in a thoughtful contribution, gave us the experiences of his constituents and welcomed the Government’s actions in relation to the renewal of the contract.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) focused on the policy design that has led to single women, in particular, being affected or targeted, talking about the effects on their children and setting out a series of questions that went to the heart of the matter. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) discussed the relative value and efficiency of the contractor’s services, the role of HMRC, and the role of incentives in contracts of this nature. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) talked about a conflict of interest and the bad practice of Concentrix. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke of a series of constituents, usually single mothers, who have been distressed by the process, citing a catalogue of errors, and the need to fast-track these people’s benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) talked about the hardship caused to his constituents and the common factors in the contractor’s lack of understanding and of compromise.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) welcomed the personal intervention of the Financial Secretary, but questioned HMRC’s role in the process and spoke of the need for a change in its culture. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) gave a number of examples of how people are being pushed into poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) mentioned the influx of cases in August and asked what had caused that spike. She also talked about phantom tenants, the unreachable, and the harsh and inaccessible bureaucracy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said that we want a system that supports people, not conglomerates, and a Government who will ensure that people, not corporates, are at the top of the agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) talked about the effect on single mothers, but also asked the key question of how many others have been affected, have not been able to reach out to their MPs and have suffered in silence.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) suggested providing support for free communication with HMRC, and the hon. Member for Inverclyde said that the responsibility lies with the Government and that the citizen’s relationship should be with the state, not individual contractors.
I welcome the Minister’s mea culpa, but it does not go far enough. In last week’s Westminster Hall debate, I said that I, like other hon. Members, had been contacted by distressed constituents who had had their child tax credits stopped, with scant attention paid to due process. In effect, the plenipotentiary powers given by the Government to Concentrix to act as it saw fit to punish and penalise tax credit claimants were used with an alacrity bordering on the enthusiastic and manic. It has come to something when it is difficult to put a cigarette paper between the question of who, out of the Government and Concentrix, has been the bigger of the two culprits, but, following the principle of, “Whoever pays the piper calls the tune,” I opt for the Government.
As I said in last week’s debate, it does not take a genius to work out that, if a company is paid on the basis of bonus or commission to find tax credit error and fraud, it will start with the easy targets. In pursuit of a business model approved by the Government, Concentrix pursued people, mainly working women, to provide information. It was nothing short of overbearing state intrusion into private lives, but it was done under the guise of reclaiming taxpayers’ money from fraudsters and cheats, which is how many people felt that they were treated.
The plain fact, however, is that there was no evidence. In many cases, the victims of that intrusion were left penniless and had little capacity to fight back, as many Members have said. Meanwhile, the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill, which is currently in Committee, encourages people to save money. One agent of the Government administers the giving away of taxpayers’ money while another takes money away, by diktat, from working women. What a topsy-turvy state of affairs.
The whole process was deeply flawed and, as has been said, operated on the presumption that people were guilty until proven innocent. Apparently, a claimant would be sent a letter by Concentrix indicating that they were not meeting the standards for a child tax credit claim, and requiring them to provide evidence of their occupancy arrangement. Some attempted to call Concentrix, only to find that the number was engaged, but if the company did not hear from the claimant, their tax credits were stopped summarily.
I do not know whether Ministers were consulted on, or asked to sign off, that process. I asked that question last week, but did not receive an answer, so I ask them to enlighten us. Even Atos did not have the power to withdraw benefits. Concentrix was given carte blanche to do so, in a licensed way, by the Government, who were in the throes of renewing the contract for a job well done, which is remarkable. Did Ministers ask why Concentrix had so many savings on its books, and did they listen to the complaints of many of our constituents at an earlier stage?
Last week, the Economic Secretary claimed, very creatively, that it was the Government who stepped in to get things back on track when they realised that the service being provided by Concentrix was not good  enough. That rewriting of history would be risible if the matter was not so serious for thousands of mothers all over the country. In reality, it was the Opposition who originally asked the National Audit Office to investigate, and we pushed for oversight and demanded action for the thousands of families who have still not received payments from Concentrix. The Government took action only under duress and pressure from the Opposition and the national media.

Kevin Foster: Does the shadow Minister agree that, given earlier comments, it is important that the National Audit Office leads the investigation into what happened, because it is independent and answers, ultimately, to this House, not to the Government?

Peter Dowd: That is a statement of the situation as it is. The key thing is that we need an independent investigation to get to the bottom of this.
The Government have said that the contract will not be renewed beyond the end of May 2017, but that still leaves us seven months. I am pleased that staff have been brought into HMRC, and I would like to know what measures the Government are putting in place to ensure that there is total oversight of Concentrix throughout the period and to make sure that nothing else goes wrong. When all is said and done, this is a question of the performance management of a government contractor, and a clear lack of oversight by the Government.
I deduced from the Economic Secretary’s inadequate response to the Westminster Hall debate last week that HMRC handed over third-party data to Concentrix and left the company to it. There was no oversight and, in the Minister’s own words:
“Concentrix…then chose who to pursue from those data.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 261WH.]
The Government have given Concentrix a free hand to intimidate and falsely accuse hard-working mothers of fraud. The Opposition want to know who signed off that decision and why there was no accountability. The Government have announced a £100 hardship payment for those affected, but no amount of money can make up for the struggles that those women faced after their tax credits were wrongly stopped, and we need an apology. As many other Members have done, I ask the Government to give that apology.
Concentrix will have the contract for a few more months, but it does not seem to have suffered any sort of penalty for its actions. We would like to know what is happening in that regard. Can we have a precise figure for how many decisions Concentrix got wrong? In how many instances was payment reduced because Concentrix failed to meet its performance standards? Perhaps the Government’s refusal to answer such questions and release the relevant information is because even with deductions for poor performance, Concentrix has still made huge profits on the backs of desperate and vulnerable people. We need answers to these questions. Perhaps an independent investigation—maybe by the NAO—will give us those answers, but whoever gives them to us, we need them as soon as possible.

Simon Kirby: This has been a thoughtful debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and efforts to support   their constituents. It is right and appropriate that I thank MPs’ staff, who have worked hard to help constituents with their tax credit claims.
It is clear—there is no doubt—that mistakes were made in HMRC’s partnership with Concentrix. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, it is right that we take action to stop errors and fraud in the tax credit system. That was why HMRC entered into a contract with Concentrix to support that action, which—let us be clear about this—delivered millions of pounds of savings and achieved close to the lowest level of fraud and error in the tax credit system since it began.
I reiterate that this is all about people. It is about making sure that the most vulnerable people are paid appropriately and that errors are not made. It is often very difficult for the most vulnerable people to deal with overpayments.

Maria Eagle: Given the poor quality of some of the information that Concentrix has used—information about tenants, previous tenants, people who are dead and people who live in the same block but not in the same house—how can the Minister justify putting our constituents through the pain of having their payments stopped on such very poor information?

Simon Kirby: I will cover that matter later, but there are clearly lessons for all of us to learn.

Kevin Foster: Given the number of people affected, what work will the Government—the Treasury, working with HMRC—carry out to help local advice centres that, like Members of Parliament, may be approached by people for advice about what to do if they receive such letters?

Simon Kirby: I will certainly ask HMRC to look into that. The important point is that this is about helping people. It is easy to stand in the Chamber citing figures and trying to pretend that something is not what it is. This is about making sure that the most vulnerable people get the money that they deserve, and about clearing the backlog as quickly as possible.
This issue is about customer service. Everyone has a right to expect a good level of customer service. There is no doubt that the customer service provided in recent times was simply not good enough and not up to the standard clearly specified in the contract. As a result of that poor performance, a great deal of worry and distress has been caused to the often vulnerable people who claim this benefit. We heard lots of very good examples of that today. I do not think that any MP is in any doubt that vulnerable people have suffered worry and distress. I advise anyone who has been adversely affected to get in touch with HMRC, which will take all complaints seriously and provide compensation where appropriate.
I move on to specific issues that hon. Members raised. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) suggested that Concentrix targeted people at random and engaged in fishing expeditions, which the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) also mentioned. That was not the case—Concentrix was not allowed to engage in fishing expeditions. It is important to note that when information was incomplete or suggested  that something was wrong, customers were asked to provide further information to enable an informed decision to be reached.

Maria Eagle: Would this be an opportunity for the Minister to tell the House why the information used was so very poor?

Simon Kirby: Some of the information used was very poor—some of it applied to people who no longer lived at the address—but, at the end of the day, the review will provide lessons for us all to learn.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South said that the evidence was flimsy. HMRC sent Concentrix cases to review if it thought that they were worth checking because there was an indication that the tax credits claim might be incorrect. Concentrix and HMRC will never be able to screen out all cases that do not involve error or fraud through data analytics alone. That is why—this point is important—HMRC and Concentrix write to customers to ask for more evidence to inform decisions.
The hon. Lady asked for an apology. At a sitting of the Work and Pensions Committee on 13 October, the chief executive of HMRC apologised for the worry and distress caused to claimants. On behalf of the Government, I echo that apology today.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that she thought that the letters were unconvincing and misleading. This is an area in which there are lessons to be learned. It was said that customers could not provide the evidence requested. Most people were able to provide the information asked for, but we want to make it easier and cheaper to supply information in the future, so we are looking at ways of improving the customer journey on tax credits.

Louise Haigh: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Kirby: I will keep going, if I may.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also asked whether the contract unfairly discriminated against women. It is important to note that as of April 2016, 88% of single claims were made by women, and 80% of single claims sent to Concentrix to check with regard to high-risk renewal were from women. I recognise this—

Kate Green: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Kirby: I will not—I have to respond to a lot of people.
I recognise that sensitivity is needed on tax credit claims and that claimants should be treated with dignity and respect. The hon. Lady also asked about penalties. The figures that will and have been deducted from payments, and the detailed calculations, cannot be disclosed at this point as they are commercially sensitive, but the amounts will be fair and appropriate.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) said that Concentrix was getting a rap on the knuckles. I point out that it is actually losing the contract.
My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made particularly thoughtful and considered contributions. They have obviously given the matter great thought.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) asked whether the contract was ended only because of poor call handling. That was not the case. The poor call handling had an impact on customers and resulted directly in tax credits being stopped. She also mentioned the downsizing of HMRC. An extra £800 million has been announced for HMRC. Using a private company in this way offered a cost-effective method of reaching a large number of people.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) asked whether this situation spelled the end for outsourcing. This is about cutting down on errors and some fraud, but HMRC will evaluate each case on its merits to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. It is fair to say that the lessons learned from this situation will help to inform future contracts.

Louise Haigh: That is the central point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said, the information was duff, and was acted on incorrectly, because the contract was designed to incentivise Concentrix through profit to incorrectly target people and strip them of their tax credits. Will the Minister commit to reviewing payment by results across our welfare system?

Simon Kirby: I will not commit to that. The hon. Lady’s points will be picked up by the NAO. Not all the information was duff, but there are clearly lessons to learn from the exercise.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about the 30-day cut-off. Tax credit regulations require a claimant to be given a minimum of 30 days to respond to a request for information. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) mentioned training. I assure him that Concentrix staff are trained in the same way as HMRC staff.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked about unresolved cases. I am not sure whether the Financial Secretary was in the Chamber to hear that, but if the hon. Lady writes to my hon. Friend, she will, I am sure, do her very best to help to resolve those cases. The hon. Lady also asked about the significance of August. August was a particularly busy time.

Mark Durkan: The Financial Secretary told me in a written answer yesterday that between 1 August and 31 August, HMRC automatically stopped 365,483 tax credits—in just that one month—as a direct result of customers failing to comply with the requirements of  the annual renewal process. How many stoppages were made by Concentrix and how many were made directly by HMRC itself?

Simon Kirby: I am happy to commit to look carefully at that matter and to get back to the hon. Gentleman.
I clarify that hardship payments are effectively tax credits brought forward. Compensation, however, is not offset against tax credits and is a separate payment. That is an important distinction to make.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) mentioned the timeline. It is important to understand the timeline, and she makes valuable points about how we can ease the customer journey and introduce new measures. That is work in progress, and I do not think there is a lot of disagreement about some of her more sensible suggestions.
In response to the hon. Member for Bootle, I would say that a lot of issues have been raised in the debate. They will be looked at very carefully by the National Audit Office. We giving careful consideration to the balance of the contract with Concentrix to make sure that nothing else goes wrong. This is about making sure that the most vulnerable people who need help get it, and that we move forward and learn from the exercise.
Although we recognise that the service provided was simply not good enough, it was right to review people’s claims for tax credits. That must go hand in hand with quality customer service that minimises distress and disruption to the people involved. Concentrix fell short of providing that standard of service in recent times, and, as a result, a large number of people were caused undue distress and worry. We have taken immediate action to restore a fast, fair and efficient service to anyone claiming tax credits. We will take further action in the days and months ahead. We will look at what went wrong, and at the NAO report, and learn from those lessons. We want to ensure that we provide the kind of quality tax and benefits service that the British public deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that Concentrix has not fully met the performance standards set out in its contract with the HM Revenue and Customs to correct tax credit claims, and welcomes the announcement that the services performed by Concentrix will be brought back in-house to HMRC next year; and calls on the Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the performance of Concentrix under its contract with HMRC, which includes a consideration of the potential effect on other HMRC services, take urgent action to compensate people who have erroneously had tax credits withdrawn by the company, and in doing so mitigate any adverse effect or reduction in service for claimants.

Yemen

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have selected amendment c tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.

Emily Thornberry: I beg to move,
That this House supports efforts to bring about a cessation of hostilities and provide humanitarian relief in Yemen, and notes that the country is now on the brink of famine; condemns the reported bombings of civilian areas that have exacerbated this crisis; believes that a full independent UN-led investigation must be established into alleged violations of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Yemen; and calls on the Government to suspend its support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces in Yemen until it has been determined whether they have been responsible for any such violations.
When we discussed Yemen in this House last week, we did so in the hope that the 72-hour ceasefire negotiated by the UN envoy to Yemen, Ismail Ahmed, could lead to a lasting cessation of hostilities from all sides and desperately needed access for humanitarian aid. These hopes, unfortunately, were dashed almost immediately. Regardless of who was first responsible for breaking the ceasefire, it is the ordinary civilians of Yemen who will pay the price. It is distressing to learn that on top of all the other threats they face from air strikes, cluster bombs, acute malnutrition and the risk of famine, the Yemeni population now face an epidemic of cholera. I believe that, wherever any Member stands on the justification for this conflict, on the UN mandate for the Saudi-led military action and on the threat to regional stability caused by the Houthi uprising, we face a situation in which the lives of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of children are directly at risk if this conflict carries on in its present form—and none of us can tolerate that.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right that the ceasefire was critical. The efforts of the Foreign Secretary, John Kerry and the Saudi Foreign Minister as well as the special envoy were vital to ensuring that we had that ceasefire. Does she agree with me that the involvement of the British Government and the American Government is crucial to ensure that we get a permanent ceasefire?

Emily Thornberry: I applaud my right hon. Friend’s commitment on this issue. I know that he was born in Yemen and that he feels very strongly about it. His approach is, of course, absolutely right: the British and the Americans have a very important influence, although most important of all is the fact that we support the efforts of the United Nations.

Toby Perkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Emily Thornberry: Let me make a little progress, and then I will give way.
Let me make it clear that this debate and today’s motion are not about the causes of the conflict or whether it is justified. Today’s debate is about the grave concerns that many Members of all parties share about the way in which the conflict is being conducted and whether those concerns are being taken seriously.

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend has moved on from the point I wanted to raise, but I thank her for giving way. She said that whatever people think about the origins of the conflict, we can debate how terrible the situation is for Yemenis on the ground, and I agree entirely. Is there any debate, however, about the origins of the conflict or the UN Security Council resolution? I thought that we were pretty much agreed across the House that we should support that resolution.

Emily Thornberry: Of course no one is saying at this stage that we should not support the UN resolution. However, further action needs to be taken in respect of the conflict. For example, it has been suggested that the UN resolution of 30 September has already mandated UN experts to work alongside the joint incidents assessment team—perhaps my hon. Friend is referring to that.
The difficulty is that if we look at the history, we find that in August the Office of the UN Commissioner on Human Rights
“called on the international community to establish an international independent body to carry out comprehensive investigations in Yemen”,
which is exactly what we are calling for today. When the compromise resolution was agreed on 30 September, the Commissioner’s Office said that it was disappointed at the outcome, stating:
“We did not have any say in the final text.”
If that resolution was not what the Commissioner’s Office wanted, I do not think that we should be satisfied with it either.

Kevan Jones: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has received, as many MPs have, a letter from the deputy speaker of the Yemeni Parliament, in which he says that the
“demand for an independent UN-led investigation goes contrary to the United Nations Human Rights Council decision in September which called for the UN to support instead the Yemeni National Commission’s investigation into civilian casualties in the conflict.”
Would my hon. Friend like to comment?

Emily Thornberry: Yes, I would. I have seen the letter, and I think it is important to condemn any breaches on both sides. It is also important to note that the UN has stated that 60% of civilian deaths have been a result of actions by the coalition. In this debate, it is important for us to examine what it is that we are doing.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Emily Thornberry: I appreciate that many Members wish to speak, and I have already taken three interventions. I would like to make some progress before giving way again.
In view of all these grave concerns and dire consequences, the debate is about whether Britain should continue to support the Saudi forces leading one side of the conflict. The shadow Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) will later address the humanitarian consequences in detail, but I want to focus on concerns about the way in which the conflict has been conducted and whether those concerns are being taken seriously by the Government or indeed properly investigated.
Last week, I said that there had been
“thousands of airstrikes on civilian targets in Yemen”.
In response, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said:
“There are not thousands…—that is to mislead the House”.—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 667.]
Let us look at the facts. In August, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report on the conflict in Yemen, which stated that between 1 July 2015 and 1 July 2016, 2,067 civilians had been killed in that conflict. On the basis of careful investigation of each incident, it said that 60% of those deaths—as I have said—had been caused by Saudi airstrikes. The report concluded—and this is important—
“In several of the…documented attacks, we have been unable to identify the presence of possible military objectives.”
In September, the independent Yemen data project went further. It examined more than 8,600 airstrikes that had been conducted between the start of the conflict and the end of August 2016, and found that 3,158 of them had struck civilian sites, while a further 1,882 had struck sites of undetermined use.

John Woodcock: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Emily Thornberry: I must make some progress. I know that many other Members wish to speak.

John Woodcock: It is on that very point.

Emily Thornberry: I will give way later, but I will not do so now.

John Woodcock: It is really important.

Emily Thornberry: May I just catch up with myself?
All those airstrikes took place before the recent devastating strikes on a wedding party and a funeral hall. So when I say that there have been thousands of airstrikes against civilian targets and thousands of civilians killed, I am certainly not misleading the House, as was suggested by the Under-Secretary. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps someone is misleading him.

Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emily Thornberry: I will of course give way to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Crispin Blunt: The Yemen data project, which looked at the numbers, pointed out that the identification of the targets as civilian or otherwise referred to their original use. No further assessment was made of the time of the airstrike or the circumstances that led to it. We must try to be very careful with the use of data.

Emily Thornberry: I respectfully agree. Indeed, I think that that very good point supports the argument that we are advancing today about the need for an independent investigation, so that we can establish the facts rather than going on assumptions and presumptions. We must all be satisfied that whatever investigation takes place is independent and internationally recognised.
There is evidence of a further disturbing trend in the way in which the conflict is being conducted. According to Yemen expert and London School of Economics professor Martha Mundy, detailed examination of Government agricultural statistics has revealed hundreds of cases in which farms, livestock, water, infrastructure, food stores and markets were targeted by Saudi airstrikes. Her analysis suggests that the extent of the bombing in rural areas where there is little activity besides farming is clear evidence that Yemen’s agricultural sector is being deliberately targeted. Some Members will doubtless argue that what was effectively a blockade imposed on Yemen in 2015 has helped to exacerbate the starvation crisis that we are seeing today, but Saudi Arabia did at least claim some UN mandate for that action. There is no UN mandate for the destruction of Yemen’s agricultural sector, which, if it is indeed deliberate and targeted, represents a clear breach of the Geneva convention.
That brings me to the question of how alleged violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen are being investigated. In September, the House discussed the fact that the Government’s position had changed from saying that, according to their assessment, there had been no violations of international humanitarian law to saying that they had made no such assessment, and that it was for the Saudi-led coalition to investigate any such incidents.

Brendan O'Hara: The Saudi Foreign Minister was recently reported as saying that, although they do not play a role in choosing the targets, United Kingdom military officials in Saudi Arabia have access to the list of those targets. If that is true, does the hon. Lady share my bewilderment about how the Government can claim not to have reached a conclusion in respect of the very serious breaches of international humanitarian law that are taking place in Yemen?

Emily Thornberry: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I heard only half his intervention, because there is a certain amount of noise coming from behind me. Perhaps I will take another intervention.

John Woodcock: It is so gracious of the shadow Secretary of State to give way. I welcome the fact that this subject is being raised in the House today and I agree with her calls for an independent investigation into this matter. The coalition is precisely focused on training Saudis to be better able to be in compliance with international humanitarian law so that our interventions, if effective, will create fewer civilian casualties. Can she explain why she has insisted, despite a number of us asking about this, keeping in the motion the fact that the UK should withdraw support for the coalition, making it very hard for many of us to vote for it?

Emily Thornberry: I take on board what my hon. Friend says, and I considered that in advance of this debate. I read something said by California Congressman Ted Lieu:
“When its repeated air strikes that have now killed children, doctors, newlyweds, patients, at some point you just have to say: Either Saudi Arabia is not listening to the United States or they just don’t care,”
and I fear the same might be true for the advice we might be given.
A Pentagon spokesperson has said:
“Even as we assist the Saudis regarding their territorial integrity, it does not mean that we will refrain from expressing our concern about the war in Yemen and how it has been waged”.
I will talk later about why I believe there may be a particular reason why, although I hear what my hon. Friend says about advice that may be given in relation to some of the targeting, there may not be advice in relation to all of it, and if he has some patience he will get an answer to part of his question.
My concern is that we are therefore putting our faith entirely in the Saudis’ joint incidents assessment team to give us the truth on these alleged violations. I showed earlier that there had been thousands of documented airstrikes on civilian sites and thousands of civilians killed as a result, so we would expect JIAT at the very least to have published reports on hundreds of these incidents, but it has published just nine. That is less than 0.002% of all airstrikes documented by the Yemen data project up to the end of August.
And how credible are those reports? The United Nations protests that four World Food Programme trucks have been attacked; JIAT blames the officials in charge of the convoy. The UN protests that 73 civilians were killed and injured in a market in Sana’a; JIAT says there have been no direct attacks on civilians and no fault on the part of the coalition forces. The UN protests that another 106 civilians were killed in a market in Hajjah; JIAT disputes that there were civilians and finds no proof of fault. The UN protests that 47 civilians were killed and 58 injured at a wedding in Dhamar; JIAT says no such bombing took place.
In only two of the nine incidents it has reported on, and the thousands more it has not, has JIAT accepted there was any fault on behalf of the Saudi-led coalition: the bombing on a residential complex in July 2015 and the airstrike on the funeral hall in Sana’a this month.

Stephen Doughty: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that, despite the frank admissions over the funeral bombing, when we have met representatives of the Saudi Government they have refused to even give a timetable for giving information on these investigations, let alone answers that might be satisfactory? Does she agree that they must come forward as soon as possible and that there should be an independent investigation?

Emily Thornberry: I was at the same meeting and heard the Saudi Foreign Minister telling us he was not able to give us a timetable on the investigation and I share my hon. Friend’s grave concern about that.
When asked at the weekend about the latter incident, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, called it “a deliberate error”, by which I believe he meant at least one individual within the coalition forces was able to deliberately unleash this terrible attack killing 140 civilians without the authorisation of the coalition command in Riyadh.
This raises major questions. Members on both sides of the House have spoken to experts on this conflict who say that there are essentially two coalition forces operating in Yemen. One is run from the capital and carries out pre-planned operations based on strong intelligence under the direction of the Americans and UK advisers. There is, however, another centre operating  out of southern Saudi Arabia, which carries out dynamic reactive operations, often based on sketchy evidence, often without thinking through the so-called collateral damage and inevitably often with significant civilian casualties. I hope that that answers the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has just raised.
If any coalition forces are acting in a reckless or indiscriminate manner in carrying out airstrikes on civilian areas, that would be a clear violation of international humanitarian law, and it should cause the whole House grave concern. The Minister’s explanation that the Sana’a funeral bombing was a deliberate error raises the prospect that there has also been intentional targeting of civilians by elements of the coalition forces, but he cannot tell us—because he does not know—how many of those thousands of airstrikes against civilian targets have also been deliberate errors.
That brings me to the crucial point of today’s motion: the need for a full independent UN-led investigation into all alleged violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen. There must be an investigation into all the thousands of attacks on civilian sites, not just nine of them, and into all the thousands of civilian deaths, not just a few hundred of them. We need to know whether Yemen’s agricultural sector has been deliberately targeted in breach of international humanitarian law. We need to know whether elements of the coalition air forces are routinely operating in a reckless and indiscriminate way. We need to know whether that deliberate error in Sana’a was a one-off or part of a more systemic problem. Finally, from a UK perspective, if there have been violations of international humanitarian law, we need to know whether UK-manufactured weapons and planes have been used to commit those violations. With all due respect to the individuals who make up Saudi’s JIAT, its output to date—whether in terms of volume, speed or content—gives no confidence that it can carry out this type of comprehensive investigation, let alone an independent one.

Stephen Twigg: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. In making the case for an independent UN-led investigation, will she make it clear that it should investigate alleged violations committed by both sides in this conflict?

Emily Thornberry: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is quite right to suggest that there have been violations on both sides. I stated that at the outset of my speech, and it is important to make that fact absolutely clear to the House. It is also important that when we are giving support to one of the sides, we should hold that fact up to the light of day.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Lady is making the case very well for an independent investigation, but given all that we know, and what she has outlined, would it not be right to suspend arms supplies to Saudi Arabia while that independent investigation takes place?

Emily Thornberry: I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but let me turn that question round. At present, we are unclear—perhaps the Government will tell us definitively today—whether the weapons and planes sold to Saudi Arabia today will be used in Yemen tomorrow. Until we have an answer to that question, it is impossible for us to say what type of support we will  be giving to the coalition. Should that support include the sale of arms that could being used in Yemen next month?
It is manifestly clear that we need a UN-led investigation. It is equally clear to me, and I hope to all Members, that until that investigation is concluded, it is right for the UK to suspend its active support of the coalition forces. That is partly a matter of our own moral protection, but also, we should not be actively continuing to support those forces while their conduct of war is under investigation. It is partly about the pressure that such a decision—[Interruption.] If I can just finish this sentence, I will give way in a moment. It is partly about the pressure that such a decision would place on the coalition forces to avoid further civilian casualties, to engage constructively in peace talks and to allow full access for humanitarian relief.

Gerald Howarth: I am most grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way. Will she explain her proposal to the thousands of people across the country who support our allies in the region? Does it mean, for example, that she is in favour of suspending all spares for the aircraft operated by the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and the other members of the coalition? Does it mean that she wants to withdraw the advice given by skilled British employees that helps our Saudi friends? If that is what she means, she is doing great damage to the British national interest.

Emily Thornberry: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The question is about whether it is right at this stage, given the impact on our economy, for us to be suspending our support for Saudi Arabia. Given the amount of arms and planes that we sell, is it right for us to suspend arms sales to Saudi if that is part of the support that we are giving the coalition? We have always complied with international humanitarian law when selling arms to our allies. We have regulations about who we sell arms to and in what circumstances. The Foreign Secretary himself said that the test for continued arms sales
“is whether those weapons might be used in a commission of a serious breach of international humanitarian law.”
We have rules on arms exports and we must make sure that we abide by them. We are a proud country that does our utmost to abide by international law. The questions that we are raising today are important because if our support means supporting a coalition that is acting in contravention of international law, we must reconsider that support. That is the right position.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I urge her to think for a moment about the impact that such a suspension would have on our credibility as an ally in this dangerous, fractured part of the world. There is a great difference between saying that civilians have been killed because terrorists are perhaps sheltering around what were civilian facilities and actually alleging that there is a deliberate programme of mass slaughter.
We have been doing an awful lot of historical commemoration and it is worth remembering the huge number of French civilians whom we killed in the build-up—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have a lot of sympathy for those wanting to make interventions, but many Members want to speak in this debate and we are not going to get there. The time limit could be three minutes, so short interventions, please.

Emily Thornberry: I refer the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) to the earlier part of my speech in which I quoted one of his own Ministers saying that a “deliberate error” had resulted in hundreds of deaths in Yemen. He must bear that in mind when we are deciding whether to continue supporting the ongoing action in Yemen. I will answer the rest of his question in the rest of my speech.
This is about the kind of signal that we are sending to the rest of the world. On Syria, Members on both sides of the House have rightly protested the bombardment of eastern Aleppo by Russia and Assad, demanded tougher international action against Russia, dismissed Russian claims that civilians are not being targeted, and called for those responsible to be tried for war crimes if necessary—they must face justice.

Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Emily Thornberry: No, I am not giving way—26 people want to speak.
We have heard all those things strongly from the Foreign Secretary, so does he accept that when he says nothing about Yemen apart from unflinching support for Saudi Arabia, when he says that the Saudi coalition should be left to investigate itself, when his Ministers dismiss reports of thousands of civilians being killed as somehow misleading the House, when we say one thing about Russia and Aleppo but another about Riyadh and Yemen, what the rest of the world hears is hypocrisy and double standards?
Today’s motion gives us an opportunity to send the opposite message to the world: to show that we hold all countries, friend or foe, to the same high standards that we aspire to ourselves, and that although Saudi Arabia will remain a valued strategic, security and economic ally, our support for its forces in Yemen must be suspended until the alleged violations of international humanitarian law in that conflict have been fully and independently investigated, and until the children of Yemen have received the humanitarian aid they so desperately need. That is the right message to send to the rest of the world and that is the message that reflects who we are as a country. I hope that it is the message this House will vote to send today.

Boris Johnson: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from ‘crisis;’ to the end of the Question and add:
“and calls on the Government to continue to support the UN Special Envoy in his ongoing efforts to achieve a political solution to bring sustainable peace to Yemen.”.
I am grateful to the Opposition for selecting this vital subject for debate. The war in Yemen has reached a critical moment, and I welcome this opportunity to set out what Britain and our allies are doing to help restore the peace and stability that Yemen’s people so desperately need.
First I should remind the House how this tragic conflict began and, in particular, how Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Gulf states came to intervene, because, contrary to the impression given in some quarters, they did not act out of some spontaneous desire to invade Yemen and attack its civilian population. Saudi Arabia and its allies were responding to a crisis that was forced on them and that posed a grave threat to international peace and security. This round of the conflict began in September 2014, when Houthi rebels overran Yemen’s capital, Sana’a, in collusion with Ali Abdullah Saleh, the previous President, and with the reported backing of Iran. Their aim was to overthrow Yemen’s legitimate Government. In January 2015, President Hadi, the serving leader, was forced to flee his own capital for the safety of Aden, a move that availed him of nothing, because two months later the Houthis attacked the south, striking as far as the outskirts of Aden and forcing President Hadi to flee his country altogether.

Flick Drummond: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that ex-President Saleh has also been asking for backing from the Russians?

Boris Johnson: The situation in Yemen is potentially disastrous, and it is vital that we stand by the people of Yemen and by the coalition that is trying to sort it out. The position when President Hadi was forced to flee was potentially disastrous. Yemen is a country of 26 million people, more than half of whom are under the age of 18. There is a long-standing presence of al-Qaeda in that country, which has a history of fratricidal bloodshed and chronic instability. At that moment, there was a clear risk that the country would fall into the hands of forces avowedly hostile to Saudi Arabia, which shares an 800-mile border with Yemen, one that is vulnerable and porous. It was against that background that the Saudis and their allies took a decision to intervene in Yemen in March 2015—a decision that was not only justified, but legally sound.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Boris Johnson: I will give way in a moment.
President Hadi had formally requested military action to restore his Government, while the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council had both called for
“all means and measures to protect Yemen and deter Houthi aggression”.
Their fears have plainly been borne out: mortar bombs and rockets have frequently been fired over the frontier and into Saudi territory. Only two weeks ago, the Houthis launched a Scud missile which flew 300 miles into Saudi Arabia, exploding outside Taif, a city the size of Birmingham that has a population of 1.2 million and lies close to Mecca. The last time Saudi Arabia came under bombardment from Scud missiles, the weapons were fired by Saddam Hussein.
As the House will readily appreciate, this conflict has wider regional and global ramifications. Yemen sits beside the Bab el-Mandeb straits, running between the Red sea and the Indian ocean. On the same day as the Scud was fired at Saudi Arabia, the Houthis launched two other missiles at an American destroyer passing through the Bab el-Mandeb. On earlier occasions, they had fired missiles at civilian vessels plying this vital  shipping lane. Every trading nation in the world, including this one—particularly this one—has a vital interest in safe passage through those straits.

George Kerevan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is laying out his case in a forensic manner. Does he recognise that the argument from these Benches is not that there was not a legitimate political and strategic security crisis in Yemen, but that the reaction of Saudi Arabia and the coalition forces is out of all proportion to the crisis with which they were trying to deal?

Boris Johnson: It was absolutely right to support President Hadi and to recognise the scale of the crisis that Yemen faces. As I have been explaining to the House—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I am laying out the case in a forensic manner—Britain has important interests at stake. By the way, it is right that we should be discussing this subject this afternoon. Furthermore, I can assure the House that, over the past few months, this country has been leading the way in a sustained diplomatic effort to try to settle that conflict.

Sue Hayman: rose—

Boris Johnson: I will give way in just a second.
In my first week as Foreign Secretary, we convened a meeting on Yemen with my American and Saudi counterparts and others at Lancaster House. At the United Nations General Assembly in September, I brought together all of the Gulf Foreign Ministers along with the United Nations Special Envoy, Mr Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. Together with the United States and other partners, we are doing all we can to support the efforts of Mr Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed to mediate a political settlement—and there must be a political settlement. The only way forward is to get a political settlement. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is absolutely right that the first step towards achieving that settlement must be an enduring ceasefire, which is precisely what we are calling for. I welcomed the three-day cessation that occurred last week, and our efforts are now directed at securing a new cessation of hostilities.

Keith Vaz: rose—

Boris Johnson: I give way with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman, the former Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

Keith Vaz: I am chair of the Yemen all-party group, which is much more important to me.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way and commend him for the efforts that he has made. The critical date was 16 October when, together with John Kerry, Ismail Cheikh and the Saudi Foreign Minister, we achieved the three-day ceasefire. Next Monday, the Security Council will be discussing the issue again. What are the right hon. Gentleman’s instructions to our permanent representative to ensure that that three-day ceasefire becomes permanent?

Boris Johnson: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Like the hon. Lady, I recognise the closeness with which he follows this issue and his deep personal interest in the crisis in Yemen. What we are saying to our representatives in the UN  and elsewhere is that it is the road map on Yemen that offers the route forward. As he knows full well, that road map has been presented to both sides of the conflict—both to the Houthis and to President Hadi and the coalition. It is up to them now to seize that opportunity. Of course they will not agree on every aspect of it, but it is that road map that offers the way forward.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Boris Johnson: I will make a little more progress.
I say to the Houthis and those loyal to former President Saleh who say they want peace—that is what they say—that their actions suggest otherwise. They promised to obey UN resolution 2216, joined the framework for the talks and turned up in Kuwait for the negotiations, but, at the same time, they have taken a series of unilateral steps that have gravely damaged the cause they claim to espouse. The Houthis have announced the creation of a Supreme Political Council and set up a shadow Government to rival the legitimate Administration of President Hadi, which is emphatically not the way forward.

Stephen Doughty: I do not find myself in disagreement with much of what the Foreign Secretary has said so far, but does he accept that the issue for many Members on both sides of the House is the conduct of the operation in Yemen by the Saudi coalition, and whether or not UK weapons and ammunition have been used, in violation of our legal obligations? Does he consider that we are acting legally under our obligations under the arms trade treaty, notably article 6?

Boris Johnson: I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment.
Let me conclude my point about the Houthis and the Saleh loyalists. It is very important that the matter is solved politically. The single most important thing they can do is withdraw their forces from Sana’a by agreement with the UN special envoy. That is where our diplomatic energies are currently engaged.
I come to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury also raised. I know that many Members on both sides of the House and people throughout the country have concerns about UK defence sales to Saudi Arabia. Let me say a few words about the general context. Saudi Arabia has been a key strategic and defence partner of the UK for decades, which is of immense value to this country, as Members on both sides of the House have rightly pointed out in this debate.
In the course of her contribution, the hon. Lady substantially retreated, I thought, from the text of the motion before the House in her name. Under questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) as to whether she would support the immediate suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and to the Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces, as is specified in the motion in her name, she refused to say that she would. She was very wise. There is a wide measure of agreement, therefore, between our parties. The hon. Lady spoke very wisely about our export control regime and she was exactly right in what she said.

Emily Thornberry: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the motion? That would help him, if he could take a moment—perhaps we could read it together. It states:
“This House supports efforts to bring about a cessation of hostilities and provide humanitarian relief in Yemen”,
and goes on to say
“and calls on the Government to suspend its support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces in Yemen until it has been determined whether they have been responsible”.
I hope I have given the right hon. Gentleman enough time to read the motion.

Boris Johnson: Most fair-minded Members of the House will recognise that under pressure about whether she would suspend UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the huge economic damage that that would entail, the hon. Lady retreated in the course of her remarks. I thought that was very striking and her judgment was entirely correct.
We take our arms export responsibilities very seriously indeed. This country operates one of the toughest control regimes in the world. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the established criteria. The most relevant test is whether there is a clear risk of those weapons being used in a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We keep this under careful and continuous review.

Alex Salmond: I think the Foreign Secretary has confused the SNP amendment with the Labour motion. Why will he not accept the concept of an independent investigation? What will undermine our case against the Russians’ breaches of humanitarian rights in Syria—will it be newspaper columnists praising President Putin’s ruthless efficiency, as the right hon. Gentleman did earlier this year, or it is the thought that UK weapons are being used illegally in south Yemen? What undermines our case more?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course we are pressing for a full investigation, particularly of the attack on the funeral hall in Sana’a on 8 October, which shocked so many people around the world. The following day I raised this country’s concerns with the Saudi Foreign Minister and pressed for a full investigation. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), to visit Riyadh to underline the strength of our feelings. An investigation is now taking place—the interim findings were announced on 15 October—and we look forward to its completion. I welcome Saudi Arabia’s public commitment to review their rules of engagement and their command and control system and to take action against those responsible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Boris Johnson: I am afraid that I must make some progress, as many Members wish to speak in the debate.
The Saudi Government have thus far approached the matter with the great seriousness it deserves—I think that those who have had the chance to interrogate the Saudi Foreign Minister in this House would agree. However, the House should be in no doubt that we are monitoring the situation minutely and meticulously,   and that we will continue to apply our established criteria for granting licences with fairness and rigour and in full accordance with UK law.
Those who say, as apparently the Opposition now do in their motion, that we should simply disregard those legal procedures should be in no doubt that we would be vacating a space that would rapidly be filled by other western countries that would happily supply arms with nothing like the same compunctions, criteria or respect for humanitarian law. More importantly, we would, at a stroke, eliminate this country’s positive ability to exercise our moderating diplomatic and political influence on a crisis in which there are massive UK interests at stake.
To the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, who sought to draw ill-informed and inapposite comparisons, in what I thought was a singularly inappropriate analogy, between what is happening in Yemen and what is happening in Syria, I respectfully say that all wars are horrific and involve loss of innocent life, but important distinctions need to be made with the carnage taking place in Syria, where poison gas and barrel bombs are being used on the civilian population in a campaign of barbarism that has cost 400,000 lives and driven 11 million people from their homes. She should not let analogy replace analysis in what she says.
Britain is at the forefront of efforts to hold the Assad regime in Syria to account, and we are at the forefront of delivering humanitarian aid to the entire region. We can be proud of our efforts to address the humanitarian crisis in Yemen—the whole House can be proud of what we are doing. As the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said, some 7 million people in Yemen face severe food shortages. Last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development hosted an event in New York that raised $100 million for the people of Yemen, on top of the £100 million contributed by the people of this country. We in Britain stand ready to do whatever we can to alleviate the suffering of the innocent, and the best service we could perform would be to help them secure a peaceful settlement.
The Government’s position is clear: the conflict in Yemen must end; and a political agreement between the Yemeni parties must be found. I agree with the hon. Lady: for that, we need a durable ceasefire and a return to negotiations. I agree with what she says, in that we should do everything we can to support the UN envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. But in the end, it is the Yemenis themselves who must also compromise. Peace is what the Yemeni people need and deserve, and that can only come from a political and a diplomatic solution. In helping to bring about that political and diplomatic solution, I believe this country, once again, is helping to show the way.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: If I may, I would like to stick to what the motion actually says. Many points have been made on which we can agree, but it is important to drill down to what the motion is actually asking the House to do.
Of course we all agree that a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in Yemen. The responsibility we all have, as has been said, is to help restore peace and bring stability  to the country and the wider region. There is no doubt that the crisis continues to grow. By June 2016, health facilities in the country reported that nearly 6,500 people had been killed, and more than 31,400 have been injured since March 2015. That is an average of 113 casualties a day. At least 7.6 million people, including 3 million women and children, are suffering from malnutrition, and at least 3 million people have been forced to flee their homes. So far, according to Save the Children, 747 children have been killed, and more than 1,100 injured. More than 2.5 million children have been displaced, and 3.4 million are out of school. This year, more than 848 children were forcibly recruited as child soldiers. More than 600 health facilities and 1,600 schools remain closed due to conflict-related damage.
The human stories behind those terrifying statistics are tragic and horrifying, so it is the view of the Scottish National party that the UK Government have a moral responsibility to act now and to do what they can to protect lives in Yemen. However, in addition to that inherent moral responsibility, which should put human lives at the centre of our decision making, the UK Government have legal responsibilities in relation to the conflict that they are failing to act on.
That is because of the actions of the coalition forces backed by the Saudi Arabian Government, which have faced serious and sustained evidence that they have acted in a manner that is at odds with international law. I understand that many atrocities have been carried out against Yemeni civilians by al-Houthi rebels, who have also shelled civilian homes, and deployed snipers who have targeted women and children. That is evil, wicked and wrong, and of course we do not agree with it. However, it is the actions of the Saudi coalition that concern me most today, because it is in that respect that the UK should be able to make decisions and use its influence for good.

Bob Stewart: I visited the air operations centre in Riyadh, where British air force personnel are helping the Saudis in their target planning. I have also talked to the pilots and the operational planners there. They assure me—and I believe them—that they are doing everything in their power to stop innocent civilians in Yemen dying. We should get that point across.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I will actually make reference to that work in a few moments. I simply cannot understand, though, why the Government are so averse to an independent UN-led inquiry into what is happening. What is the problem? What is there to hide if there is so much confidence on the Government Benches about how we are conducting ourselves?
It is clearly and undeniably the case that the Saudi-led coalition forces have bombed funerals, weddings and markets, and used banned cluster bombs on populated areas and on protected sites such as power stations. They have systematically targeted Yemen’s agricultural economy—as alluded to by the shadow Foreign Secretary—in what academics have called a programme for the destruction of the rural livelihood of Yemeni civilians. They have killed men, women and children who have been gathered at family celebrations, and they have specifically targeted bombs and missiles on sick and dying hospital patients.
The reason why that is materially different from the actions of the al-Houthi forces is that the UK does, indeed, train and support Saudi pilots. We have military personnel embedded in Saudi Arabian military command and control rooms giving advice on the selection of targets. We sell Saudi Arabia the weapons and bombs it is using and the jet planes that deliver them. We have a material stake in this disastrous conflict. We therefore have a responsibility to the people of Yemen to do the right thing. On this, the Government are failing—but do not take my word for it.

Thomas Tugendhat: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Let me make some progress, and then I will.
According to the January 2016 UN Panel of Experts report on Yemen, the coalition airstrikes have failed to uphold the cornerstone principles of proportionality and distinction in any armed attack, and have clearly failed to take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties. In March this year, Amnesty International released new field-based research documenting the further use of cluster munitions by the Saudi-led coalition, including the first reported use of UK-manufactured cluster munitions in any conflict for nearly two decades.

Daniel Kawczynski: rose—

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: In a moment.
Amnesty found a partially exploded UK-manufactured BL755 cluster bomb munition—we discussed this in an urgent question—that had been used by the Saudi-led coalition forces. BL755 cluster munitions are known only to be in the existing stockpiles of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and are specifically designed for use by UK-supplied Tornado aircraft.

Wendy Morton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I just want to finish my point about the report.
Cluster bombs are an illegal weapon banned under international law since 2008, and the UK is a state party to the 2008 convention on cluster munitions.
So what does this mean for the UK? A legal opinion prepared by Matrix Chambers in December last year detailed how UK arms transfers to Saudi Arabia constitute a clear violation of our national, regional and international arms transfer obligations.

Wendy Morton: Does the hon. Lady accept that the final delivery of BL755 cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia was in 1989—almost 30 years ago?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I thank the hon. Lady for that point, which was made during the urgent question. There is absolutely no definitive position on this, nor can any guarantee be given that these weapons are not being used. The question has been asked on a number of occasions.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: If I can make some progress, I will give way in a moment.
The legal opinion prepared by Matrix Chambers in December last year detailed these UK arms transfers.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way on this point?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Specifically, the opinion states that the UK is in breach of article 6.3 of the arms trade treaty because the UK Government ought to have had the necessary knowledge that serious violations of international law were taking place.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I know that the Government do not like hearing legal opinion, or indeed the opinions of experts, unless it suits their case, but I will continue to make my case. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am within my rights not to take interventions unless I so wish. I shall therefore proceed. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We all want to get through today’s debate. Shouting means that I cannot hear the hon. Lady. That is not helpful to me, and it should not be helpful to you.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The UK is also in violation—[Interruption.] For those who are clearly not listening, this is legal opinion. The UK is also in violation of article 7 of the arms trade treaty on the basis of a clear risk that future weapons supplies could be used to commit or facilitate serious breaches of international law.
What have this Government done to address and investigate these serious and widespread concerns? By their own admission, they have done nothing. After spending most of 2016 telling Parliament that assessments had been conducted and that they were confident that no breach of international law had occurred, they changed their story to declare that no investigation had been carried out at all, and now appear to have changed their mind again. On 4 January 2016, the then Foreign Secretary told this House—I am glad that I now have the Government’s attention—the following:
“I regularly review the situation with my own advisers and have discussed it on numerous occasions with my Saudi counterpart. Our judgement is that there is no evidence that”
international humanitarian law
“has been breached, but we shall continue to review the situation regularly.”
However, the written statement published by the Government on 21 July this year stated that it was important to note that the Government had not reached a conclusion as to whether the Saudis were guilty of international humanitarian law violations in Yemen. They said:
“This would simply not be possible in conflicts to which the UK is not a party, as is the case in Yemen.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 42WS.]
Then last month the current Foreign Secretary, who is in his place today, completely contradicted his own ministerial colleagues—a frequent occurrence—in an interview with “Channel 4 News”. He definitively stated   that, after taking evidence from a “very, very wide” range of sources, the UK Government do not believe that Saudi forces have broken humanitarian law, despite the fact that his own Ministers withdrew previous similar statements to Parliament.
Who are we to believe—the previous and current Foreign Secretaries, who say that there has been a UK investigation, or the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is in his place and has been sent out to defend the indefensible once again? Do they really believe the assurances given to them by the Saudis? Have this Government really not properly independently investigated the claims? Do we really have no idea at all, given the close links that clearly exist between our Government and the armed forces, whether our closest ally in the middle east is using our weapons in this conflict, as the Prime Minister herself suggested last week to my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)? This matters, because when the UK is presented with serious and widespread evidence of breaches of international law, we simply cannot take for granted the words of those who are accused of it.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Lady is right to mention the letter of international law and the question of knowledge and clear risk. Does she agree that it is absolutely incredible, not least in the light of the funeral bombing, that some claim that there is no knowledge or clear risk that actions may be taken against civilians? Does not that get to the heart of the matter?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Three Committees of this House—the Select Committees on Foreign Affairs, on International Development and on Business, Innovation and Skills—are of the uniform view that we cannot rely on the assurances of the Saudis and that there must be an independent, UN-led inquiry. Why are the Government not listening to the Select Committees of this House?
We agree with the Foreign Affairs Committee, whose recent report, “The use of UK-manufactured arms in Yemen”, concluded, among other things:
“We do not believe that the UK Government can meet its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions by relying on assurances from the Saudis.”

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am not giving way. The report continues:
“We recommend that the Ministry of Defence carry out its own investigation into the evidence of a UK-supplied cluster bomb found in Yemen.”
The Committee also believes that there should be an independent, UN-led investigation.

Thomas Tugendhat: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There can be only one person on their feet. You have indicated that you want someone to give way, but if they do not, you must take your seat again.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We also agree with the joint report by the BIS and International Development Committees, which states:
“We do not believe that the UK Government can meet its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions by relying on assurances from the Saudis.”

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I have indicated that I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. The report continues:
“In the case of Yemen, it is clear to us that the arms export licensing regime has not worked. We recommend that the UK suspend licences for arms exports to Saudi Arabia, capable of being used in Yemen, pending the results of an independent, United Nations-led inquiry”.

Tania Mathias: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is critical that we see evidence of whether any stockpiles of cluster bombs have been destroyed?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: We have read tragic reports of cluster bombs being happened upon by children and of the terrible damage that they cause, so I welcome and agree with the hon. Lady’s intervention.
I agree with the proposition of all three Select Committees, which are unified in their view that there must be an independent inquiry and that we cannot rely on the Saudis to give assurances.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Through sheer generosity and kindness of spirit, I now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Lindsay Hoyle: You are too generous!

Kevan Jones: I just want to help inform the debate. I put the point about cluster munitions directly to the Saudi Foreign Minister when he came here. He said that, yes, they had bought them, but that was 30 years ago; that they are not usable, because they are 30 years old; and that it would not be possible to use them anyway, because they cannot be integrated with modern jets.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I note the points that he has made and his questioning of the Saudi Minister, but does he not agree with the view of the Select Committees of this House that the UK Government cannot meet their obligations under the convention on cluster munitions by simply relying on the assurances to which he refers? I agree with the Committees.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I will not give way to him further. He has an opportunity to make a speech if he so wishes.

Kirsten Oswald: Does my hon. Friend agree with the views of Penny Lawrence, the deputy chief executive of Oxfam, who said a few weeks ago that the UK had gone from being an “enthusiastic backer” of the international arms trade treaty to being
“one of the most significant violators”?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I hope that hon. Members and the Government were listening to my hon. Friend’s point. This is a serious issue, and it should come as no   surprise that people in this debate speak with such passion and concern about the loss of life and the Government’s inability to hold themselves to account. One wonders what the Government are afraid of.
There is a clear and overwhelming case for halting UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia. As the shadow Foreign Secretary pointed out, if the Foreign Secretary read the motion he would see that the amendment on halting UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia was ours. The amendment was not selected, but it remains our position that unless and until it can be confirmed categorically that these weapons are not being used on civilians, we should not be selling arms to Saudi Arabia. There is a moral and a legal case for that position, and the Government should act now. We need full disclosure over whether UK personnel have played any part at all in the conflict in Yemen. We support calls for an international independent inquiry into violations of international law in Yemen. It is the duty of all of us—all states—to uphold international law, and we should not be afraid to argue for that. Let us be absolutely clear: the UK must immediately suspend all sales to Saudi Arabia.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just advise Members that we are going to have to be very brief and very concise? I will be a bit more lenient with the first two Members; I have asked them to take only seven minutes. After that, the limit will be five minutes.

Crispin Blunt: It is probably essential that I follow the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) because she quoted extensively from the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on this subject. My critique is that she took the comments about the cluster munition incident and extended them considerably more widely, and that is at the heart of the problem with the assessment of this issue.
Although the Committee felt that there should be independent verification around the cluster bomb incident, and we did say that a
“United Nations-led investigation of alleged violations by all parties to the conflict is necessary to supplement the internal investigations of the Saudi-led coalition”,
it is standard international practice that the Saudis should be given the opportunity to investigate these incidents in the first instance; that is an established principle. We said in the report:
“We agree with the Government that it is appropriate for the Saudi-led coalition to investigate these allegations in the first instance.”
We went on to look at the detail of the operation of the joint incidents assessment team, saying:
“further progress is needed to ensure that JIAT is transparent, credible, and publishes its investigations in a timely manner. We recommend that the UK Government offer its support to the JIAT where appropriate so that it can meet these ends.”
In the rather limited time available, I want to refer briefly to the allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law. We have imposed on ourselves through the law the toughest set of conditions around arms licences. The proper place for those laws to be tested is in a court, and that is what will happen. More widely, in  relation to our interests both in Yemen and the Gulf as a whole, the Government are charged with the responsibility of promoting our national interest and the international interest, as well as the wider promotion of our values.
No one will disagree when I say that there are, of course, challenges in this area. The Yemen conflict represents an immensely difficult challenge on a number of levels. However, as the Foreign Secretary said, the conflict did not come out of nowhere. We have to look at the issue of intent. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire when she says that the Saudis are targeting women and children. The judgment we have to make is whether the Saudi-led coalition, in executing a unanimous United Nations Security Council resolution to restore some kind of order to the recognised authority in Yemen, is trying to do so with the best of intentions. What is the Saudi interest in committing breaches of international humanitarian law while progressing a very difficult military campaign in the most unbelievably difficult geographical circumstances, given that the coalition is relatively immature and has never done this before? We should be thinking about what support to give our ally in picking up its responsibility for the delivery of regional security, because if it was not doing so, where would that responsibility sit?

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman mentioned intent. Does he not accept that arms trade law is based not on intent, but on the clear risk of violations of international humanitarian law? Like me, he supports an independent inquiry. If that found that international humanitarian law had been violated by the Saudi-led coalition, what action would he support?

Crispin Blunt: As I have just made clear, that is a matter for the courts. It is a matter of law that should be judged in the courts. The judgments that we need to make are policy ones. As far as the conduct of the operation in Yemen is concerned, it is in our interests to give as much support as possible to the Saudi-led coalition, which is, in effect, acting on our behalf, so that the coalition is able to conduct the operation successfully and within international humanitarian law.
Would that aim to be achieved by pulling all support from the Saudi-led coalition, as the Opposition’s motion proposes? Would it be assisted by suspending arms exports, as the Scottish National party’s amendment suggests? It is pretty clear to me that either of those actions would seriously damage the sensible and proper conduct of the operation in Yemen by making it more difficult for the coalition to execute the operation with the advice and support of both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Despite the limited time, I want to put this issue in the context of our wider relationship with Saudi Arabia. What lessons would the Saudis take, and what message would it send to Saudi Arabia if, in these circumstances, we pre-emptively—in advance of any legal challenge to the basis of the licensing regime—pulled support from Saudi Arabia? Whether they are acting under international humanitarian law will be tested in the courts, but I believe at least that their intent is to make sure that they progress the operation within international humanitarian law.
What is happening in Saudi Arabia today, and in what direction is the state going? We have had a long-term strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia, and I invite  hon. Members to examine what is happening there. They should look at Vision 2030. They should look at the people who are now in charge. Anyone who has listened to the Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir—he has been to the House twice recently to give a presentation to MPs—will have seen how impressive a Foreign Minister he is. The deputy crown prince who is now leading economic reform in Saudi Arabia has put extremely impressive technocrats in charge of that process. It is all part of a wider modernisation process, not just economically but socially. It is absolutely in our interests that that direction for Saudi Arabia is supported and is successful.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Crispin Blunt: I will.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I just say to the hon. Member for Reigate—sorry Mark, because I am sure you want to come in shortly—that he has had eight minutes. I want to bring Keith Vaz in. When other Members have no minutes left, they are then going to wonder who to blame. Is the hon. Member for Reigate going to give way?

Crispin Blunt: I will.

Mark Hendrick: I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for giving way. I ask him quite simply: what is the alternative to the Saudi royal family as a Government—liberal democracy or an extreme Islamist Government? I think it is rather the latter. This country, and the west generally, must deal with the current Saudi Government whether we like it or not.

Crispin Blunt: We have seen the consequences of the uncontrolled loss of governance in the region, and they are pretty ugly. The truth is that the current leadership in Saudi Arabia is probably taking the country is a general direction that we can all approve of. The Saudi Government face huge challenges in doing that, but Saudi Arabia is the most important country in the Gulf. I believe that we should try to be alongside its Government on that extremely difficult journey, rather than making things more difficult. If they have to turn elsewhere for support, they will not be getting laser-guided bombs, but weapons that will not enable them to carry out operations in the Yemen in the way that they are or with the benefit of our advice. I am aware that I have now run out of the time you allocated me, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Keith Vaz: Although my heart is breaking looking at the violence and humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, I am very proud of this Parliament. In the past seven days we have discussed Yemen twice, and 60 Members of the House are here today.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), the shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow International Development Secretary, for agreeing to hold this debate. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his pivotal role in ensuring that we got a ceasefire when he met John Kerry and the Saudi Arabia Foreign Minister on 16 October. I also thank the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Ochil and  South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), for the way in which she and her party have raised this issue over a number of months since the last election.
In the brief time that I have, I will concentrate on the ceasefire and the UN resolution that I hope will come on Monday. The ceasefire announced last week lasted only 72 hours. Fighting and bombings have swiftly returned at an intensity identical to that seen before the brief cessation of hostilities. The ceasefire had allowed food and humanitarian supplies to reach areas that had otherwise been completely inaccessible. The special envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, begged both sides for an extension to the ceasefire, but violations by both sides rendered those efforts fruitless.
We are now at a critical stage in the history of Yemen. We have said this so many times before, but now, more than at any previous time, Yemen is on the brink of disaster. That is why our concern in this House should be to bring about a permanent ceasefire in Yemen, and why all our efforts should concentrate on that critical UN meeting that will take place on Monday in New York.
I am sorry that we are going to divide on this subject this evening. I put forward an amendment that I hoped would be selected. If the House could only vote as one in favour of peace in Yemen, I would be very happy.

Thomas Tugendhat: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz: I will. The hon. Gentleman has been to Yemen; indeed, he learned Arabic when he stayed there.

Thomas Tugendhat: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. Peace is absolutely essential. May I remind hon. Members of the various elements of the combat in Yemen and the situation regarding arms? We are talking about Saudi Arabia in this debate, but the Houthis are being backed by Iran, so Iranian weapons are going in there. Can we remember that there are two sides and two foreign parties involved?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—this is much more complicated. There are many sides to this, not just two. Anyone who has dealt with Yemen or lived there for a while will know that the tribal system is extremely important. It is important that we do not make this simplistic. What is very clear is the scorecard of shame that Members have talked about today: the 21.2 million people who require urgent humanitarian assistance, 9.9 million of whom are children; the more than 10,000 people killed in the last 18 months; and the 14.1 million people at risk of hunger, the equivalent of the combined populations of London, Birmingham and Glasgow.
I welcome what the Government and the International Development Secretary have done to ensure that more money has been pledged to Yemen, but it is critical that the money is used for supplies, and that those supplies reach the people who are hungry. Otherwise, all the money we raise will not be enough to deal with the crisis. Oxfam’s chief executive, Mark Goldring, who addressed the all-party group last week, called the situation in Yemen “Syria without cameras”. I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), who was born, as I was, in Aden; the hon. Member for  Charnwood (Edward Argar), another officer of the group; and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for all the work they have done.
On Monday, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is not in the Chamber, said to the Prime Minister that when 7,000 people were killed in 1995 in Srebrenica, the international community acted. That is why it is so important that we not only debate today’s motion, but follow through with a resolution that will be taken on board by the whole United Nations. Despite the incredible work of Islamic Relief, Oxfam, UNICEF, Médecins sans Frontières and many others, they simply cannot get the aid in. I hope that when the Minister, who has engaged fully with the all-party group, comes to wind up the debate, he will tell us more about what can be done to ensure that the aid gets through. He will say, I think, that unless we get the ceasefire, people will starve. I commend the international community for all the work that it has done to try to ensure that the ceasefire occurs. The issue of investigations has been raised, and while it is important that we get the investigations, we need to have the ceasefire. Once we have that, any investigations to deal with violations on all sides will need to be addressed, and we will need to address the question of what arms are being used.
What concerns me and what should concern the House—I know it concerns the Foreign Secretary—is what is going to happen on Monday. In my debate last week, we were told that Britain holds all the pens as far as Yemen is concerned. That is why the instruction that the Foreign Secretary gives to our permanent representative—the excellent Matthew Rycroft, who is leading for us in New York—will be so critical. I wish that the Foreign Secretary could go to New York on Monday and argue the case, but I do not manage his diary. I think that the presence of the British Foreign Secretary at the United Nations on Monday would be critical.
Members will raise all kinds of issues, all of them important, but unless we have a permanent ceasefire, this country will quite literally bleed to death while we discuss them. I beg everyone involved in the process to please move together in a united way, without dividing opinion, and concentrate on that one critical issue: getting the United Nations to back a permanent ceasefire. Then the people of Yemen can actually survive.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I just remind Members that the time limit is five minutes.

Alistair Burt: I apologise to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of her remarks.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak. Without covering all the ground, because there is so much to talk about, I would just like to say two or three things. I speak from the experience of having been a Minister who visited Yemen and understands a little bit about it, and who also had the responsibility of signing  off arms control applications in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I speak as someone who I think on occasion got it both wrong and right.
The FCO has some incredibly difficult choices to make in dealing with any of these issues. The focus of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who made a typically excellent speech on this subject, was absolutely right. It is understandable that the motion is before us, and the sentiments behind it are well understood. Is it the most significant thing at the moment? Probably not, because ending the conflict was what the right hon. Gentleman focused on, and in getting to the end of a conflict, some incredibly difficult choices have to be made. The balance between our values and the practicalities of the issues surrounding decisions in the middle east has never been more finely balanced or more difficult.
I repeat that I understand the sentiments behind the motion, but I do not think that it is the right answer to the problems we have. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out well the complexities and some of the background that is essential to understanding where Yemen is today.
Two things about the kingdom of Saudi Arabia might be usefully known. First, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East and others know, Yemen has been in a state for a long time. It was the king of Saudi Arabia who picked up Yemen and sent money over a lengthy period of time. This friends of Yemen process was started by the Labour Government when they were in office. A lot of money was put into Yemen; it did not get through to the people because of the actions of the then President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who is a constant factor in the difficulties created in the region. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been extremely generous in trying to support Yemen and pick it up.
Secondly, we need to be aware of the openness with which the Saudi Foreign Minister addressed the issue of the dreadful bombing attack on the funeral recently. That is relatively new, and it indicates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, a different approach in Saudi Arabia, which is of huge significance in the region.
With that in mind, we come to what we are trying to say and do today. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said that our values would come forward from what the House did. With all due respect, that is not necessarily so. It is not just our interpretation of our values that is important; other people’s interpretation of our values is important as well. I know from tough experience that what we sometimes say and do here with the best of intentions is not always seen in the same way elsewhere. Sometimes what we hold to be dear can be seen as naive misjudgement by those who are closer to the action and have difficult judgments to make themselves.
What is most important is that in a region where friendships have been changed in recent years—most notably by some of the actions of the United States leaving people wondering whose side they were on, and who was going to be a balance in the regional interests and conflicts—for the United Kingdom to be seen to make a similar judgment at this time would undermine the efforts being made for peace.
Let me quote from the letter sent to Members from the ambassador to Yemen before today’s debate. In respect of the peace efforts being made, he said:
“We hope the Houthi militia who control Sana’a may be persuaded to engage seriously in peace talks”—
which is obviously what we all want. He continues, however, by saying:
“They hope instead to weaken the Coalition by undermining relationships with its Western Allies”.
That is what we might, unwittingly, fall into.

Alison Thewliss: Does the right hon. Gentleman not also appreciate that although the UK is doing good work by providing aid, we are undermining that good work by also selling bombs that are landing on the heads of people in Yemen?

Alistair Burt: No, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. The great work that we are doing on humanitarian relief is well respected, but the issue of who is supportive in a situation that, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, is not of the Government of Yemen’s own making is a complex one. The undermining of a constitutional process that is absolutely vital to the further development of Yemen and the issues between north and south are further complicating issues. I went to both north and south and I went to Aden; I met the southern leaders; the constitutional process was getting somewhere—but it was undermined by the Houthi attacks and then the support of Ali Abdullah Saleh. Only when that is stopped can the constitutional talks continue and the efforts for peace be delivered, because that is what is most important for the people who are suffering in Yemen. With the best will in the world, this action by the United Kingdom would not achieve anything on the ground, and it might make the process more difficult. We want to see a ceasefire as quickly as possible, but I do not think that by withdrawing our support from one of the parties that can actually make that happen and by giving false hope to others to continue the conflict, we would be doing our best for the people of Yemen.
I greatly appreciate not only being given the opportunity to speak, but some of the difficult judgments that my colleagues have to make. Sometimes it is not easy to get the balance right. I think that on this occasion my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, above all, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), are doing the very best that they can for the people of Yemen, and that we should back them up.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Unfortunately, because Members have been giving way, I shall have to reduce the speaking time limit to four minutes in order to accommodate Members. I am sorry about that. I call Kevan Jones.

Kevan Jones: It is right for us to support the legitimately elected and UN-backed Government of Yemen. It is also important for us to work tirelessly to bring about the ceasefire to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred, because without it we shall not be able to get humanitarian aid into the country or advance a political settlement. However, I cannot support the motion, because my hon. Friend the Member for Islington  South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), concentrated on only part of the story, which she does quite a lot when it comes to this conflict. She condemned the actions of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, but completely ignored what is being done by the Houthis, and the Iranian-backed weapons that are being taken into Yemen to fuel the conflict and help the Iranians to destabilise the region.
War is a horrible thing, and if there are violations on either side, I strongly believe that they should be investigated. It is sad that it was only in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury said yes, we should investigate all sides.

Emily Thornberry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kevan Jones: I will not, because time is limited.
The Iranians are fuelling the conflict with millions of pounds’ worth of weapons. That is not a sign that a regime wants a peaceful settlement. As for their involvement in the peace process, there is evidence that they undermined the ceasefire that was in operation in the past few days. That is not helpful.
I accept that there are people, in the House and elsewhere, who take a moral stance against either the manufacture or the export of arms. Do I respect those people? Yes, I do, but I do not agree with them. I take what is perhaps, in the Labour party, the rather traditional view that we should be able to manufacture weapons, and that individual countries should be allowed to protect themselves when that is possible. I am proud that our legislation on arms exports was one of the achievements of the last Labour Government. The Export Control Act 2002 was the first such legislation for 50 years. We have a robust system in this country, and we should not shy away from it.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) that if Members want to comment on certain matters in the Chamber, they should consider them in detail first. When the Saudi Foreign Minister came here, I asked him about cluster munitions. However, I did not simply take his word for it. I knew from my own experience that using a 30-year-old cluster munition would be unsafe—and, in any case, how could it actually be delivered? I entirely agree that those issues should be investigated, but I do not think that they should be represented as facts when there is evidence to show that it might not be possible for such munitions to be used.
The situation is complex, but I do not think that the motion does anything to support the peace process, which I think is what we all want to do. I agree with the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that a united voice from the Chamber this evening would be the best way of achieving what we all want to achieve. I am thinking not just of peace in Yemen but of the need for us to support our allies in the region, who are important not just to stability in that part of the world, but to the prevention of terrorism and other threats to us at here at home.

Gerald Howarth: I do not regard myself as an expert on Yemen, but I have had a long association with the region, both as a banker and  as a Member of Parliament. I am a former Defence Minister who was responsible for defence exports, and a Member of Parliament for Aldershot I represent the headquarters of the fourth largest defence company in the world, BAE Systems.
As we heard from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—and I agreed with everything that he said—it is important for us to understand that the United Kingdom has enjoyed a very long and mutually beneficial relationship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There have been occasional differences between us, but those are to be found in any relationship.
We have got to understand the big picture. The kingdom is a key player in a region currently facing massive challenges, not least from Iran. In the case of Yemen, the kingdom has assembled an Arab coalition to take action against Houthi rebels following the ousting of President Hadi by Houthis widely believed to be supported by Iran. The coalition is operating under UN Security Council resolution 2216 and is composed of a pretty formidable array of Arab states: Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain and Qatar. That is a not-insignificant Arab grouping.
The coalition is also taking action against Daesh and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as demanded by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) when she was a shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, who said that the UK needs to
“work with the Saudis to ensure that we stop the flow of funding and support to ISIL/Daesh.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2015; Vol. 603, c. 122.]
The Saudis should be commended on what they are doing, not criticised.
As the hon. Member for North Durham said, the Houthis have a long record of atrocities, including recruiting child soldiers, using civilians as human shields and preventing aid groups from delivering medical supplies. Members should also know that the Houthi flag reads:
“God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam”—
a motto partially modelled on that of revolutionary Iran and almost word for word a translation of Ayatollah Khomeini’s slogan. So we should be doing all we can to support our key ally in dealing with these disreputable people.
So, what about the criticism of Saudi Arabia? There was indeed an attack on 8 October on a funeral party which tragically killed some 140 innocent people, but the Saudis ordered its joint incidents assessment team, a body formed of representatives from the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Yemen as well as the kingdom itself, to undertake an immediate inquiry which established that the air operations centre in Yemen directed a close air support mission to target the location without obtaining approval from the coalition command to support legitimacy and without following the coalition command’s precautionary measures to ensure that the location was not a civilian one. JIAT concluded that action should be taken against those found to be responsible.
We all make mistakes. I have had responsibility for targeting, and the Americans are not without criticism in this regard; they attacked a hospital manned by  Médecins Sans Frontières. To suggest that the UK should suspend defence exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is at best SNP grandstanding and at worst a kick in the teeth for an important ally, as well as doing a disservice to the hundreds of highly skilled workers at Raytheon and Leonardo plants in Scotland which supply equipment to the BAE-led Salam programme of defence exports to Saudi Arabia—but I suspect SNP Members do not care about the employment prospects.
Like the Al Yamamah programme before it, Salam has made a significant contribution to the maintenance of the defence-industrial capability of the UK, generating prosperity across the UK, including Scotland.

Toby Perkins: I am sad to say that I will be unable to back the motion my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has introduced today. I think this is the first time I have not supported an Opposition day motion, and God knows I have backed some rubbish—only joking. There is much in the motion that I agree with, but I fear it is ultimately undermined by the abandonment of our commitment to the UN Security Council resolution, and I fear that while it may make us feel better, it will not make the situation on the ground better.
The situation in Yemen is appalling and is quickly becoming the greatest humanitarian challenge stalking the planet in what is a most difficult time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) spoke movingly about the scale of the human catastrophe in Yemen and I agree with him that it is a shame that we are seeking to divide the House on this issue.
There are legitimate concerns about the actions of Saudi Arabia in the Yemen. There is little doubt that the recent bombing of a funeral in the Yemeni capital constitutes a war crime; it was an appalling act that sickens us all, and I am pleased that the Saudis have accepted culpability and that an investigation into this incident is ongoing. I hope that as the investigation continues those responsible for this awful incident will be brought to justice and tried by the International Criminal Court.
There are other allegations against the Saudis that should concern us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury referred to the reports of deliberate strikes against agricultural infrastructure and the bombing of recently besieged areas in which aid is being provided. For that reason, I support the call for an independent inquiry to establish what has been done, by whom and on whose orders. My hon. Friend is right to push the Government and the international community to do more to ensure clarity on this matter, and we should be attempting to use our influence to ensure that a legitimate UN-sanctioned campaign in Yemen is not undermined by inexcusable actions. She posed some important questions, but I have to say that I was not certain what support she was asking us to withdraw. The motion clearly does not refer to arms exports. So if I were to support it, I would not be clear exactly what I was asking for.
It is true that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is not an easy one, but we do wield some influence and our security is enhanced by the relationship. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, once a secretive, suspicious and insular country, now sends its Ministers here to be scrutinised  by MPs in the Houses of Parliament. Other Members have referred to our significant economic interest in continuing to have positive relations with the Saudis, and to the fact that they have been a useful ally for our own security in the past and today. For years, the west has asked Saudi Arabia to take on more responsibility for what happens in the region, and it is now doing so. None of this means that we should ignore or underplay the significance of infractions of international humanitarian law, but we should think very carefully before isolating Saudi Arabia in the way that the motion suggests.
We should also be clear about the true threat posed to the people of Yemen, and indeed to the wider middle east region, by the Houthis. They are a terrorist organisation and they are unapologetic in their slaughtering of civilians. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) has just referred to the words inscribed on their flag, and those words tell us everything we need to know about the true motives of that organisation. It is for precisely that reason that, in April 2015, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2216, which mandated military action. It would be a huge mistake for us to turn away from that. As everyone in the House is aware, thousands of Yemeni women, children and old people will sleep fitfully tonight, never knowing what horrors tomorrow might bring. Now is not the time to throw away the influence we have. It is time to use it to help to create a safer middle east.

Nadhim Zahawi: I see that the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is on the Front Bench. I welcome the Government’s commitment to addressing the humanitarian situation in the Yemen, which has made the UK the fourth largest donor this financial year by committing £100 million to provide food, clean water, and medical supplies. However, those emergency supplies do nothing to abate the arguably more serious, yet still intertwined, threat to the humanitarian situation: the war crimes and human rights abuses of which the evidence speaks volumes. Such evidence has implicated all parties involved in the conflict in abuses of human rights.
Let me be clear. Even if you are a legitimate Government in exile struggling to reclaim your country from aggressors, or a foreign state charged with assisting in that recovery, and even if you have the backing of the United Nations itself, you are never exonerated from the duty to uphold human rights. Human rights abuses are always unacceptable, illegal and totally barbaric, and they must be called out and stopped. I am of course completely in favour of an independent UN-led investigation into the accusations of human rights abuses made against the Saudi-led coalition—one that can support Saudi Arabia’s own investigations—but to say that we should withdraw our support for the coalition until such investigations have gone ahead would be, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Sir Simon Mayall, a former middle east adviser in the Ministry of Defence, said when giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee that it was likely that without Saudi intervention, groups such as ISIL would have gained a similar footing in Yemen as they have had in Syria and Iraq. The Houthis would also have been able to expand throughout Yemen far more freely. Indeed,  we would have seen an Iranian-backed militia having huge influence over the security of the vital Bab el-Mandeb shipping strait. With more Houthi territory under poor and unstable government, the opportunities for al-Qaeda to gain territory would have been greater still, adding to the substantial Yemeni regions it already possesses.
It could not be clearer that without Saudi military aid the situation would be far worse. Time and time again, Saudi Arabia has proved a crucial ally of the United Kingdom. We have worked together in Iraq and Syria, and in providing relief for Syrian refugees. The regional stability in the middle east that our close connection with Saudi Arabia has engendered is also of particular note. I ask the whole House to recall the first Gulf war and the location from which the then military coalition launched its offensive against Saddam Hussein’s illegal occupation of Kuwait. No Member of this House would disagree that it was illegal and that the offensive needed to happen. Saudi Arabia hosted the US-led coalition that liberated the country. It is staggeringly obvious that we would be less safe without our ties to Saudi Arabia, and so would the Yemeni people.
In the limited time remaining, I want to turn to the future, because the only way to resolve or alleviate the crisis is by reaching a political solution. In this conflict, and in so many across the middle east, the sectarian divide plays a huge part in the political process. Whether Yemen, Syria, Iraq or Lebanon, the Shi’ite tradition of Islam, spiritually led by Iran, and the Sunni tradition, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both need to learn to reconcile with one another. From my background in Baghdad, I know that Sunnis and Shi’as can exist harmoniously and that religious divides need not be exploited as they have been across the middle east. I hope with all my heart that such a future awaits the people of Yemen.

Stephen Twigg: Last Saturday in Liverpool, I helped to organise a vigil for peace in Yemen, at which we launched the “Liverpool Friends of Yemen”. The scale of the humanitarian crisis is truly appalling. Thousands have been killed. Three million are acutely malnourished. As the motion says, it is a country
“on the brink of famine”.
More than 21 million Yemenis require humanitarian assistance—80% of the population. Over 1 million children are internally displaced. More than 14 million are in need of basic healthcare.
I pay tribute to DFID and the Government for their humanitarian relief work. This country has committed £100 million at a time when the UN appeal, according to my latest figures, is only 47% fulfilled. I also pay tribute to the many NGOs that are doing fantastic work in relieving the appalling crisis.

Chris Matheson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there were more population flows towards this part of the world, we might be taking the crisis in Yemen more seriously?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many describe the situation as a forgotten crisis—although I welcome the fact that this is the second debate on Yemen in this House in the space of just a week.
The International Development Committee’s inquiry into the Yemen crisis reached a number of conclusions. The first thing to say is that the evidence is clear that appalling atrocities have been committed by both sides in the conflict. We heard not only that over 62% of the killings have been caused by the Saudi-led coalition, but that Houthis have recruited children to armed groups and have sieged towns such as Taiz, denying basic access to humanitarian aid and medicines. There is no suggestion in the motion or in my Committee’s reports that we are taking sides with the Houthis; this is about a balanced approach.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is right, and we no doubt agree on where the responsibility lies for starting this conflict and for many of the atrocities. Does he agree that we are neither an ally of the Houthis nor selling arms to them?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clear that negotiations and a peace process are needed, that we need a lasting ceasefire and that humanitarian work and civilian protection must be prioritised. The International Development Committee started with the view that this was a humanitarian crisis, but as we took evidence it became clear that we simply could not divorce the humanitarian position from the alleged violations of international humanitarian law by both sides. In turn, we could not divorce that position from the fact that we are arming one of those sides.
There are widespread reports of violations of international humanitarian law. The UN documented 119 abuses, and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented substantial numbers more. The Government, however, have been rather dismissive of the evidence from such organisations. Saferworld told the Committee:
“In other contexts, the Government will cite their reports. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty will be cited in Syria; they have been cited in Libya and Sudan in support of the Government position. Here, they are referred to as not good enough to be considered evidence compared with a reassurance from the Saudis, one of the belligerents to the conflict, that there are no violations of international humanitarian law.”
I welcome the fact that at the recent UN Human Rights Council the UK position did shift and we signed up to an EU common position that enabled there to be a greater independent element in the investigation of abuses, but I support what this motion says, which is that there should be a fully independent UN-led investigation into abuses by both sides. My Committee reached agreement that in the meantime we should suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The scale of arms sales—

Wendy Morton: I serve on the International Development Committee and, as one of its members, I think it is fair to say that we said the matter of arms sales should go before the Committees on Arms Export Controls; we did not say to suspend sales at that stage.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Lady is an excellent member of the Committee and she is right that in our earlier report we did indeed say that, but in the later report in September, after the CAEC discussions, we then agreed  a report, jointly with the then Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, that advocated a suspension of arms sales while the independent investigation was undertaken.
I wish to finish on the following point—the clock seems to be being rather generous to me and I thank it for that.

John Bercow: There might be human forces involved as well!

Stephen Twigg: I am even more grateful to those human forces. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee spoke about intent, and this issue is vital. What European Union, United Kingdom and international arms trade law says is that licences cannot be granted if there is a “clear risk” that the arms may be used in the commission of violations of international humanitarian law. This is not about intent; it is about there being a clear risk. That is the test we face, and my major concern is that the approach that the Government have taken is inconsistent with the UK’s global leadership role on the rule of law and international rules-based systems.
A point was raised earlier about reputation, which is very important. Our reputation as an upholder of international humanitarian law is very important. We can be proud of the active role this country played in the shaping of the arms trade treaty, and I simply do not believe that that test of “no clear risk” is the one being applied. I agree with colleagues on all sides of this debate who have said that we want a ceasefire and a political process, and that this conflict will be settled diplomatically, not militarily. However, crucially, the reason why I support this motion is that I really do believe that we need a fully independent UN-led investigation into all of these appalling alleged violations of international humanitarian law—on both sides.

Wendy Morton: It is a pleasure to follow some very learned speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). Today’s debate comes after a recent Adjournment debate in this Chamber about humanitarian aid to Yemen and a number of other debates, including a Backbench Business Committee debate and a Westminster Hall debate, and after the report by the International Development Committee, of which I am a member.
All of this highlights the seriousness and complexity of the situation, but it also raises awareness of what is often described as the “forgotten war”. It is worth remembering that the conflict in Yemen has its roots in the failure of a transitional process that it was hoped would bring stability to the country. Following the uprising in 2011, that has, sadly, not been the case and now, despite nearly two years of conflict, neither side appears close to a decisive victory. The UN estimates that more than 4,000 civilians have been killed, with more than 7,000 injured, that 3.1 million Yemenis are internally displaced and that 14 million people are suffering from food insecurity. But this humanitarian crisis was going on before the current situation began. So in calling for humanitarian relief, we should recognise  the tremendous work done by the Department for International Development in Yemen, as well as that of all the non-governmental organisations. This is a country in which the challenges of getting aid to those who need it most is great. Whenever and wherever UK aid is sent, the importance of an unimpeded passage cannot be underestimated, not just for those in need, but for the safety of those NGOs and DFID staff who work in-country.
On 21 September, the Secretary of State announced an additional £37 million of aid to support Yemen, which brings the UK’s total humanitarian funding for the crisis to £100 million this year. DFID and the UK Government should be commended for that. The UK is now the fourth largest donor, which shows that it certainly has stepped up to the plate. However, the aim above all must be to seek a political settlement and a cessation of hostilities. The Government must use their leadership role and influence as much as possible and remain fully involved in diplomatic efforts to bring about peace. The UK’s strong relationships with a number of important players in the region is vital. Our influence in the middle east must put us in a unique position to help bring about the lasting peace settlement that we all so desperately want.
There is no doubt in my mind that the security situation in Yemen is serious. This conflict is brutal. The UN has reminded all parties that they have a duty of care in the conduct of military operations to protect civilians. Yes, concerns and questions remain, particularly around the airstrike that hit a funeral hall in Sana’a on 8 October. It is for the Saudis to investigate and report back in the first instance. We must remember and recognise that, at the UN Human Rights Council in September, the UK supported a strong resolution, which included a commitment to increase the number of international human rights experts in the Yemen office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights.
Surely a political solution and an immediate, unconditional ceasefire between Houthi rebels and Government forces must be the way forward—a way forward in the pursuit of a long-term solution to this conflict. As the embassy of the Republic of Yemen has pointed out, this conflict did not begin with the arrival of the Saudi-led coalition in March 2015. It began much earlier.
There is much more that I would like to say, but I appreciate that I am short of time. Let me end by saying that I will not support the Opposition motion, but I will support the Government’s amendment, because it is the right and proper thing to do.

Mark Hendrick: The situation in Yemen is appalling and indeed devastating to the population. It is right that we hold our friends to higher standards, but to withdraw our support from Saudi Arabia is to remove ourselves from being a critical friend and ally of a regime that we want to reform and that is going through a process of change which will only improve its governance and its prestige in the world. It is the world’s largest oil exporter in a region that is fraught with dangers and conflicts. Why would we want to abandon an ally in that situation, especially as they supply us with intelligence on al-Qaeda and ISIL and support us in our fight against terrorism more generally?
Stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia will not end the conflict in Yemen. In fact, it could exacerbate it, because, obviously, it would no longer be listening to the sound advice of this country, its Government and its military. At the same time, it would also devastate many thousands of highly skilled people who are working in an industry in Lancashire that provides aircraft and systems that defend with great effect not just our borders, but the borders of our allies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
If the reported human rights abuses are taking place, are they accidental, are they planned, or are they being carried out by rogue elements of the Saudi air force? I do not know, and I welcome the coalition’s interim report and look forward to its final report.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the fact that the interim report, which was published on 15 October, stated that Saudi Arabia is reviewing its rules of engagement and will take action against those responsible for the atrocities. He also said that the House should not be in any doubt that the British Government are meticulously monitoring the situation. Having served on the Committees on Arms Export Controls, I would expect them to do that, and I expect them to do so again in the future.
As I said in an intervention, the alternative to a royal family governing Saudi Arabia is not liberal democracy, but extremist Islamism. Undermining one of our allies in the region is not an alternative to guiding them to abide by international humanitarian law and the standards to which we all in this House aspire.

Daniel Kawczynski: The House should remember that the countries involved in the terrible war in Yemen do not have a history of intervention. Historically, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar have not intervened in other jurisdictions, despite their location in a very difficult and volatile region. They have certainly never come together, as they have done on this occasion, to collectively enter another country—in this case to take on the Houthi rebels.
We ought to pause for a moment to think about the historic consequences and the unique situation that we find in all these disparate countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) listed the names of the countries that have come together because collectively they see the appalling consequences of what is happening in Yemen. My contacts in Saudi Arabia tell me that many Saudis are married to Yemenis and that there has historically been a huge amount of exchange between Yemen and Saudi, and the idea that they would deliberately target civilians is one that they find appalling and shocking.
Yemen is being destabilised by the Houthi rebels. As we heard from the Foreign Secretary, they are firing Scud missiles into Saudi Arabia and carrying out the most appalling brutality throughout that country. We have heard from the SNP about the civilian casualties, but the Emirates have lost more pilots in this conflict than in the history of their nation, so they have suffered a great deal as well.
I am concerned that the coverage of the situation by our own media in this country, the BBC and Newsnight in particular, is superficial, poor, and I would even go so far as to say biased, leading to motions such as that emanating from the SNP.
We met the coalition forces at the Royal United Services Institute. RUSI kindly organised a meeting for us at which we engaged with the head of the Saudi air force, who told us, “Every single plane has cameras on it. We can pinpoint exactly where the planes are at any one time. If you have evidence that any of them have deliberately”—that is the critical word, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) alluded to it—“targeted civilians, that must be raised directly with the Saudis.” They are doing everything possible to try to limit civilian casualties. There is a report in The Independent today that the Americans’ recent bombing in Syria has led to over 300 casualties. Of course, civilians are affected, regrettably, when there is a bombing campaign.
We take great pride in Shropshire in training many pilots from the Gulf states—Kuwaitis, Emiratis and Saudis—at RAF Cosford and RAF Shawbury. It is not just about selling the equipment to those Gulf states. We take great pride in training those pilots to the very highest standards. They are taught by their British counterparts not just about professionalism and about flying, but about the ethics of flying those planes and the importance of what they do. I am very proud of the contribution that we make and I regret that there are Members in this House who think that we would be party in some way to deliberately targeting civilians.

Douglas Chapman: I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is not in his place, for his initiative in securing the Adjournment debate last week on the humanitarian atrocities in Yemen. We all look forward to the UN peace talks that will take place in a few days and I hope they bear fruit. That debate was well attended and there are even more MPs here for this debate. Government Members should take note of the growing discontent and unease in this House and across the country about breaches of humanitarian law in Yemen. This issue has not emerged just in the past week. I remind the House that the debate today takes place more than a year after the first evidence emerged of deliberate human rights violations by the Saudi regime in Yemen. It will come as no surprise to anyone here today that I opposed the granting of arms export licences to Saudi Arabia then, and I oppose it now. Although I am pleased to see many more Members gradually coming to that view in today’s debate, it astonishes me that there are still those who cannot see the contradiction in continuing to allow those arms sales while asserting that Britain is a force for good in the world.
With over 3 million internally displaced persons in Yemen and almost 15 million people experiencing food insecurity, the human cost of the conflict is all too clear. Last week the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen watched in silence as Krishnan Guru-Murthy introduced a Channel 4 exposé of the level of suffering we are releasing on the children of Yemen through our actions and inactions. We heard from Yemenis who told us that they welcomed the current ceasefire, as perhaps being a path to lasting peace, but that that peace could not be delivered while the civilian population was in danger of being bombed in school, at weddings, at funerals  or at work in Yemen’s faltering economy. This is not grandstanding—but if it is grandstanding, I plead guilty.
We on the SNP Benches understand perfectly well that Saudi Arabia is an ally, that it is fighting on the side of the legitimately recognised Government of Yemen, and that atrocities have been committed on both sides, but the fact remains that the sale of £2.8 billion-worth of arms to the Saudi regime over the course of this conflict has undoubtedly contributed to humanitarian suffering. Surely those on the Government Front Bench cannot take a contrary view.
The most galling aspect, in my opinion, has been the blatant attempt to ensure that no independent investigation takes places that would put our Government in the inevitable position of having to request that arms sales be halted. In October last year, when the Netherlands sought to establish the first UN investigation into war crimes in Yemen, the UK Government supported a Saudi motion that would see it investigating its own crimes. I have met no one who seriously thinks that Saudi Arabia has the capacity to conduct a rigorous, independent and transparent investigation into itself. The Foreign Secretary knows that a Saudi-led investigation is worthless, I know that it is worthless, and this House knows that it is worthless.
Put simply, the UK Government must immediately support the establishment of a thorough, UN-led investigation into these crimes, and the continuing inability of anyone on the Government Benches to move that forward is to their immense discredit. As the Committees on Arms Export Controls found in their evidence, it opens Ministers—these Ministers—up to international criminal investigation, and that cannot be in our national interest.
The SNP’s position is that the Government must halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia immediately and ensure that a full investigation, under the auspices of the UN, now takes place.

Mark Menzies: I think most of us in this House would recognise that Saudi Arabia is a country in transition. It has come a long way in a relatively short space of time in order to address some of the concerns that we in this House have articulated. To deny that it has made progress is to deny the facts. I think we all share the concerns about what we have seen taking place in Yemen. No one could defend the bombing of a wedding party and the deaths of civilians. However, when we stand back and look at the conflict in its totality, and the crimes that the Houthis are responsible for, such as the capture and the killing of Saudi personnel and intrusions across the Saudi border, we have to recognise that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, like any sovereign state, has the right to defend itself.
As someone who has visited Saudi Arabia, I have not been shy about criticising aspects of its Government’s direction of travel, but neither should we be blind to the fact that the kingdom has made some great strides forward in recent years to address the concerns of many Members of this House.
I think that we would be wrong to withdraw support in an attempt to influence the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A withdrawal of support, which is implied in Labour’s motion and made explicit in the SNP’s amendment, relates to the withdrawal of arms sales. I unashamedly  defend our right to sell defence equipment legitimately, with export controls, as we do, to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In my constituency, 6,500 men, women and apprentices are employed by BAE Systems at Warton, 4,000 over at Samlesbury and another 1,000 over at Brough, working on Hawk trainer aircraft, Typhoons and Tornado upgrades. Without the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and without those arms exports, 16,000 people would be out of work.
It is all very well for people to sit as though they were at an Islington dinner party and, over their latest glass of Uruguayan wine, say “Let’s stop arms sales,” but let us look at one key fact: every single one of those people is a human being, not a number; they have mortgages to pay, they have skills and they have jobs. Twice in my time as a Member of Parliament I have been at the gates of BAE Systems in Warton when redundancies have been made. My goodness, when you see proud working people at the risk of losing their jobs, it is a humbling moment. So when I see people in this House tabling motions calling for those people to lose their jobs—that is what is happening—I question their moral judgment. These are supply chains. If we seek to suspend the sale of this defence equipment, these people do not just go somewhere else; they do not just switch to manufacturing for someone else—they lose their jobs; that is what happens. When people feel really proud that they have said and done the right thing, there are also people who will lose their jobs—tens of thousands of them up and down this country.
I am not going to sit and take lessons from the Scottish National party about what we are doing morally. I know what we are doing morally: we are controlling arms sales, and I support the Government’s actions on this issue. We are controlling arms sales through the rigorous approach taken by the Government, and anyone who seeks to deny that is denying the truth.

Tom Brake: I thank the official Opposition for securing the debate. I also thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is not in his place—he is by your Chair, Mr Speaker—for rightly putting the focus on the ceasefire, which is what we in the House would all like to see, although we will not be debating his amendment this evening, or indeed voting on it.
I shall focus briefly on the international investigation. Clearly, there are precedents for the UK Government pushing for international investigations—Sri Lanka, for instance, springs to mind. In the right circumstances, we would all support an investigation that covers both sides, because human rights abuses are potentially being committed on both sides. The Government’s position is that they are not opposing calls for an international, independent investigation, but I would like to press the Minister on the circumstances in which they would actually support such an investigation. He has referred to allowing the Saudis to conduct their own investigations, but at what point—using what test, what criteria and what timetable—do our Government turn round and say, “Actually, we think we’ve reached the point where we need an international, independent investigation”? I am sure the Minister is aware that the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that 93% of casualties from air-launched explosives are civilians.  It is difficult to see, with such statistics, how civilians are not being targeted, certainly through the use of air-launched explosives.
An inquiry might also consider whether the use of cluster munitions is in breach of international humanitarian law. I know that the Minister’s view—or the legal advice that he has received—is that, provided those munitions are used in a way that does not contravene international law, and particularly international humanitarian law, their use per se is not necessarily unlawful. I hope that he will be able to set out on what legal judgments he bases that view that the use of cluster munitions in civilian areas is, on occasions, legal.
I certainly think that the Americans would be in favour of an international investigation. The Minister may be aware that US officials have looked at whether the United States might be a co-belligerent and could be pursued under international law for war crimes. I hope that our Government have investigated that.
I welcome the visit of the Saudi Foreign Minister. I agree that he was very open and frank, which is a good start in what is, perhaps, a developing relationship. He said that changes would be made to how the Saudis handle these issues as a result of the incident, or mistake, that they accept what happened in relation to the funeral bombing. We have heard that the Saudis will take action against those directly responsible, but what else does our Minister expect them to do? What additional measures does he expect them to put in place to ensure that such incidents do not happen again? Perhaps he will say something about double-tapping, which we have heard is a war crime in Russia, but does not appear to be so in relation to Yemen.
There is, I am afraid, overwhelming evidence that breaches of international humanitarian law are taking place in Yemen, and that is why I shall support the motion tonight.

Seema Kennedy: The situation faced by the Yemeni people is grave, and I am pleased that our Government are the fourth largest donor of humanitarian aid there. I am dismayed, however, that while the international community has pledged $100 million of aid, Germany is still to commit to pay, and the EU has paid less than it promised. A cessation of hostilities is in the best interests of not only Yemen but the wider region, but I do not believe that the suggestions in the Opposition’s motion would in any way achieve that aim.
We cannot overestimate the importance of UK-Saudi relations to the British national interest. Our strong alliance, which spans decades, encompasses trade, security and intelligence. It has, over many years, provided us with crucial intelligence that has saved the lives of our constituents. We must not forget that, nor the fact that it has taken decades to build up that relationship of trust. This understanding comes from the fact that tens of thousands of British nationals, including many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and the hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick), have lived and worked in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through their work in the defence aerospace industry. They realise that this fledgling state—we must remember that it was founded only in  1932—is not perfect, but that progress will be made only through experience, engagement and co-operation.
Stability in Saudi Arabia is in the British national interest. Chaos has ensued in the past few years since the so-called Arab spring, with a spike in terror meted out at home, and unprecedented migration to our own shores. The country does not have the perfect liberal democracy that we have here, but what it has is better than anarchy and terror. We must support Saudi Arabia in its drive towards reform in a peaceful fashion, because these are difficult times for that country. The falling oil price, and unemployment and underemployment, are creating a vacuum that could be filled with radicalisation, which, again, would have an impact in our constituencies.
It is unsurprising that Saudi Arabia will do all that it can to prevent the war in Yemen spilling into its own territory. This is the country’s first experience of extended military action, as its Foreign Minister made clear when he came to Parliament last week and spoke frankly about that fact. It is through British intervention and guidance that the Saudis will learn about accountability and transparency. How would they do so without allies like the UK? If the UK were to suspend its support for the Saudi-led coalition forces, as the motion suggests, that would not expedite the publication of reports. Rather, Saudi Arabia would continue its campaign but without our influence as regards better targeting, transparency, accountability, and our understanding of international humanitarian law.
Moving on to the SNP’s position, I will not reiterate the arguments so ably set out by other hon. Members about our arms control policy and the importance of the aerospace industry to our country. This is not an either/or situation; the Government are not pursuing trade to the exclusion of human rights. We can have these conversations about human rights because we have strong trade and diplomatic relations. It is naive to think that if we suspended arms sales, Saudi Arabia would not buy from somebody else. The motion, and particularly the SNP’s position, misunderstand the realities of the region and our role in it, and the British national interest.

Margaret Ferrier: It is almost five months since I successfully secured a Westminster Hall debate on human rights and arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Part of my speech focused on the situation in Yemen, and since then that situation has gotten progressively worse. There is a massive humanitarian crisis as the country heads into winter, and it is also careering towards a famine. Millions of people urgently need food assistance, but unfortunately they are not receiving it due to the lack of unhindered access.
I appreciate that the Government have been making efforts to ensure that aid starts to get through—that has certainly helped the situation—but the war-related damage to Yemen’s infrastructure means that essential supplies are still not getting into the country. Onerous restrictions on humanitarian access have resulted in 1.3 million children under five suffering from malnutrition. Is it going to require images of dead children to make us do  more? There will soon be no shortage of them—that fact is heartbreaking and infuriating.
The Department for International Development will no doubt argue that we are already doing our fair share, and of course it is only right that we do so. I am afraid, however, that handouts cannot make up for us arming the forces that are causing a lot of the damage to the country’s infrastructure. Make no mistake: although we are not coalition partners, we are willing accomplices.

Lisa Cameron: rose—

Margaret Ferrier: A lot of Members want to speak, so I am sorry but I am going to continue.
I have been calling for the suspension of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia for more than a year, and I have heard many excuses for not doing so. First, the Government insisted that the Ministry of Defence had conducted assessments of the situation in Yemen and determined that there was no evidence of breaches of international humanitarian law. That was as recently as June, when the then Foreign Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), insisted, in response to me in a Westminster Hall debate, that that was the case.
There was then a climbdown when the Government admitted that the MOD had not, in fact, conducted any assessments. The new refrain is that the Saudis should be responsible for investigating themselves, and that is what has started to happen. Although the joint incidents assessment team has investigated relatively few incidents, even it has been forced to admit that the Saudi-led coalition has indeed broken international humanitarian law. That still does not seem to be enough to shame the Government into action. Even the coalition airstrike in Sana’a on 8 October was not enough.
The UN panel of experts on Yemen has condemned the airstrike. It said that the coalition had “violated its obligations” under international law and that it
“did not take effective precautionary measures to minimize harm to civilians, including the first responders”
on the scene. When I tabled a written question to the Foreign Office in June to ask for an assessment of an extensive report published by the panel of experts in January, it responded:
“The UK has supported, and continues to support, the work of the panel of experts commissioned by the UN, but we do not always agree with their conclusions.”
What is totally shameful about that response is that not once have I seen any evidence whatsoever that the Foreign Office has ever disagreed with the conclusions of the Saudi authorities, let alone questioned them. Why is it that the Government seem content to take the word of a participant in the war at face value, yet disregard so readily the findings of the UN panel?
We need to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and we need an independent investigation. It is time for the Government not only to come clean about their role in the conflict, but to start putting things right.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. A number of issues have been touched on very ably by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The first thing we have to consider is that Saudi Arabia—I have visited the kingdom twice in the past  three years—is itself on a journey. I first went there in 2013 as part of a delegation, when it was clear that one regime was coming to an end. I and a few colleagues went there earlier this year, and it was equally clear that the country had evolved. There were new programmes in place under the direction of Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who spoke candidly about the nature of Saudi involvement in Yemen, as has his Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, very ably in many instances.
The Saudi action in Yemen is not coming out of the blue. It is not something that the Saudis are doing for the sake of it. They are doing it in response to UN resolution 2216, which other Members have alluded to, so in this instance they have the force of international law behind them.
I do not dispute that there have been incidents. I do not dispute that the Saudis have, at times, been overbearing and acted ultra vires, as we used to say—beyond their authority—and that civilians have been killed. That is greatly to be regretted, and it is an appalling violation. When there have been violations, they need to be looked at, but I do not believe that suspending the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia would help this country or the interests that are represented so ably by colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), the hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) and other north-west Members. To do so would not help them or their constituents, nor would it be of any strategic value to the region itself.
In the past five years, there has been an appalling collapse of order right across the middle east. Libya has descended into chaos, and Yemen has been riven by this terrible conflict, in which right is clearly on one side. The Houthis are rebels and do not wish to conduct themselves according to international law as set out by the UN. There has been chaos in Syria. It is absolutely clear that, in this instance, Saudi Arabia is not acting unilaterally. It is acting as part of a coalition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) suggested. Many Arab countries—not just Gulf countries, but countries such as Morocco—are involved in the action. Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are all involved—[Interruption.] They may not be the shining democracies that you would like to see in Scotland, but they are functioning Governments that are a source of stability.

John Bercow: Order. I did not say anything about what I would like to see in Scotland.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I know that, Mr Speaker. I just had a rush of blood to the head when I saw the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) chuntering from a sedentary position.
It is quite clear that the countries I have just mentioned are sources of stability, and it makes absolutely no sense for us to turn our backs on them. On the contrary, we must work with them and make sure that where there are violations, the right people are held to account. It makes no sense for us to walk away. We have important strategic relationships with these kingdoms. To achieve stability in the region, we will need to be mature in our relations with them, and friendly and co-operative when we can be, but we can also be particularly critical if we feel that that is needed.

George Kerevan: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) accused the SNP of grandstanding and of denying Saudi Arabia the right to self-defence. Our argument is rather that the Saudi intervention in Yemen is disproportionate; that is the key. Several legitimate and well-respected human rights organisations have used open source material to try to count the number of airstrikes in Yemen since March of last year, when the Saudi coalition began the bombing. There have been at least 8,600 airstrikes, and that is disproportionate. There are not enough targets for the Saudi coalition to go on bombing as they have done. One of the findings from that open source material is that at least one third of the airstrikes have resulted in civilian casualties. That is the issue.

Lisa Cameron: Does my hon. Friend agree that funding what appears to be indiscriminate bombing is undermining the excellent work that the Department for International Development is doing in humanitarian aid?

George Kerevan: I would not only accept that, but go further and say that it is undermining the Saudi case for trying to create a stable Government and a stable political position in Yemen. The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) introduced a new doctrine: the doctrine of intent. He said that we should look at the intent of the Saudis and, since they say they are doing good things and they want peace and security, we should consider that to be enough. Let us look at the intent of the Saudi Government. They have not signed up to the international convention on cluster weapons. If they do not want to use them, I would have expected them to sign up to it. In fact, as we all know, they have been using them—air-launched and ground-launched cluster weapons. I know that the Houthis on the other side are using them as well, but we are talking about a massive, western-funded, western-armed coalition versus a small group of rebels. That is disproportionate.
If we look at which cluster weapons have been found by human rights organisations across Yemen, we can see that they are not just the BL755 cluster weapons manufactured in Britain, but the CBU-105s, CBU-87s and CBU-58s manufactured in the United States. They have been found to have been used in at least five provinces in Yemen. Here is the thing: the American cluster weapons were sold to Saudi Arabia 20-odd years ago. I do not know how they got there or who used them, but it is surprising that all the types of cluster bomb weapons supplied to the Saudis about 20 years ago—in the 1980s and 1990s—have been found to have been used comprehensively and across the whole of Yemen. That deserves an investigation, which is what our amendment asks for.
The test of what Saudi Arabia is doing is not intent, but whether there is on balance a risk that humanitarian law has been broken. I put it to the House that there is ample evidence of that. How do we get the attention of the Saudi regime? That is at the core of the proposal in the SNP amendment, which has not been selected, to call for an immediate withdrawal of current sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia. To respond to the hon. Members for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) and for Fylde (Mark Menzies), our proposal is not to stop all arms sales in perpetuity. We are trying to get the attention of the Saudi regime, which cannot put its own ground  troops into Yemen. The real secret is that the regime cannot trust to using its own ground troops—it keeps them at home to protect the regime, which has no democratic legitimacy—so it uses its air force, which has very close links to the royal family, in a consistently indiscriminate way.
Hon. Members have repeatedly mentioned the bombing of the funeral. It was the funeral of a leading Houthi Minister and a lot of Houthi Ministers were expected to be at it, so one suspects that it was not quite the accident that it has been made out to be. There have been repeated cases of civilians being killed in missile and bomb attacks in places where Houthi leaders were expected. My point is that calling for an investigation and for a halt to arms sales in the short term is a way of getting the attention of the Saudi regime to ensure a ceasefire and a permanent solution to this crisis.

Nusrat Ghani: The situation in Yemen is dire. As the House has already heard, nearly 7,000 people have lost their lives as a result of the conflict, and more than 14.4 million people in Yemen are food-insecure. The recent ceasefire provided a welcome few days of relief, allowing much-needed humanitarian aid through to areas that simply cannot be reached while clashes are going on, as was passionately noted by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).
A true and lasting solution to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen must come from a longer, stable ceasefire during which efforts are made by both sides to agree a long-term, balanced peace deal that the people of Yemen have invested in themselves. I strongly support the Government’s work at the UN and, through our ambassador, Edmund Fitton-Brown, in Yemen. We should be proud that we have contributed £100 million to the UN’s humanitarian response, making us the fourth largest donor. I am pleased that our ambassador was present at the Kuwait talks. Our support for the UN special envoy, both politically and financially, is also extremely welcome.
However, we must recognise that this is not about us and that we are just one player. It is very easy to moralise on foreign affairs, but the devil is always in the detail. History has taught us that it is not our role to dictate relations between neighbouring countries in a region in which, if we are honest, our record is not exactly perfect. I suggest that we show some humility in our role.
My reservations about how Saudi Arabia conducts some of its affairs, internally and externally, are known. To discuss those concerns would require a whole other debate in itself. But however critical we are and will be continue to be about the involvement of Saudi Arabia in this conflict, that involvement is at the request of the legitimate Government of Yemen, to deter aggression by the illegitimate Houthi rebels.
The situation in Yemen and Saudi Arabia’s involvement are not isolated, but have to be seen in the context of the wider difficulties in the middle east and, once again, ongoing tensions between Sunni and Shi’a; in this case there is also the involvement of the Zaydi Shi’a, who are so extreme that even Iran at some points calls them out.
As regional power struggles continue between Sunni and Shi’a, Saudi Arabia and Iran are once again the players in the situation. Iran has allegedly been increasing the frequency of its weapons shipments to the Houthis via the Omani border. Will the Minister outline what the coalition and the UN envoy are doing about that?
As I draw to a close, I once again have to mention terrorism and extremism. We know the danger posed by failed states. It is the fuel that Daesh breeds on, allowing it to export its ideology and terrorism. As we continue to defeat Daesh, we must also recognise the role being played by Saudi Arabia within the Islamic military alliance, which now has 39 members. The organisation’s joint command centre is in Riyadh, and the role of the alliance in the future defeat of Daesh has been recognised by us, the United States and others. We cannot risk weakening that alliance or the willingness of its leading members to lead the fight against Daesh by attempting to undermine its role in the Yemen conflict.
As my time is running out, I put one further request to the Minister. In the context of getting lasting peace in the region and strengthening co-operation, I suggest that he pushes for some sort of inclusion of Yemen in the Gulf Co-operation Council. That would send a strong message of solidarity and sustainable economic co-operation.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. When we consider that the war in Yemen is reported as the forgotten war, it seems even more appropriate that it is raised in this place, the highest seat of democracy, to ensure that our international obligations are being satisfied.
I support the legitimate Government in Yemen. I also put on the record that I support the peace process as we try to move forward. It is important that we do so, and to put that on the record when we are looking at these issues in this House. Indiscriminate bombing and the murder of innocents in Yemen—the destruction of property and the loss of life—are issues we are very aware of. We must condemn such actions, wherever they come from, and I have done so in the past. Amnesty International has said that violations of international humanitarian law have been committed by both sides with impunity, so it has said that both sides have been guilty of—dare I say it?—war crimes, in many cases. That has to be condemned by everyone in the House.
The Saudi-led coalition has been responsible for scores of airstrikes that have indiscriminately targeted civilian objects, disproportionately harmed civilians and attacked infrastructure indispensable to the civilian population, including hospitals, schools and humanitarian installations. According to the UN report on Yemen of 2016, the coalition airstrikes have failed to uphold the cornerstone principles of proportionality and distinction in any armed attack, and have clearly failed to take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties.
There is a definite need for intervention. That is the reason for my highlighting this issue back in June in a written question, asking what assessment the Foreign Office had made of the UN Secretary-General’s report, “Children and Armed Conflict”, and its annexe, published in April 2016, in which the Saudi-led coalition is listed as committing grave violations against children in Yemen.  I ask the Minister again, what is being done to provide the response there should be to a war of this magnitude? What aid has been sent, what diplomatic pressure has been applied and how are we attempting to bring an end to this forgotten war?
As other hon. Members have said, Yemen is a tribal society. Islam is part of the identity of the Yemeni tribes, and tribal leaders are likely to enforce punishments for those who wish to leave Islam. That can mean honour killings, house arrest or, for women, forced marriage. Those are human rights abuses that we cannot legitimise or support. I put on the record my concerns about those abuses.
In the power vacuum resulting from the conflict, al-Qaeda and Islamic State are trying to gain power. That alone should mean we do all in our power—we must act to stop another Muslim country turning into an ISIS-held country. The world can little afford more strongholds for those who despise our very existence, and passionately wish to stop any of us in this place having another breath.
We have a duty to help children who are being slaughtered indiscriminately. We must send aid to the support networks to provide the assistance that is needed. We have a duty internationally to stand with our allies and ensure that those who seek to tear down and destroy understand that we will not stand by and passively allow or, even worse, encourage atrocities to take place.
Finally, we have a duty to our constituents to prevent terrorists having an even greater hold upon this world. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. I do not want that to be said of this House in this debate. At a sensitive time of delicate diplomacy, let us support the UN initiative as it elevates this critical problem in Yemen and support a solution and a peace process that can last. Let that be the message from this House tonight.

Kevin Foster: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), given that we regularly see each other at a range of debates in this House.
It is welcome that we are here again discussing Yemen. Having attended the recent Adjournment debate secured by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I share many of the comments he expressed earlier about the scale of the crisis gripping Yemen and the disaster that the conflict has proved to be for the Yemeni people. I think it was earlier this year when the UN highlighted that both sides were preventing the access of food aid. I know he shares my disappointment that the ceasefire has not held. Again, I share his hopes that the forthcoming UN discussions will bring what everyone here wants to see: a return to a system based on a constitutional structure for settling differences, not one based on armed conflict.
That said, we have to look at the choices and the alternatives, and at why the UN voted to support an intervention. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) talk about a small rebel group. It is perhaps worth quoting the House of Commons Library on this “small rebel group”:
“The Houthis have managed to gather dozens of tanks and plenty of heavy weaponry from these defectors and deserters.”
It also states:
“Yemen’s government and armed forces have long been weak and fragmented, and have had too many forces lined up against them to put up a strong resistance to the Houthis.”
This is not a small band of people who are incapable militarily; these Houthi rebels are former soldiers who are able to pose a direct threat of overthrowing the main Government. That is why the intervention is there. We then have to be clear about the alternative. If we did not have coalition involvement, the Houthis would overrun the whole country. We would have a failed state in Yemen, equivalent to the failed state we have had in Somalia for so long.

Kevan Jones: It is not only a large group. It is well armed with arms from Iran. There is also evidence that there are Iranian revolutionary guards acting on the ground in Yemen.

Kevin Foster: Let us be blunt. It is not a small rebel group that fires effectively a ballistic missile at a neighbouring country or attacks a US warship in international waters. That does not fit my definition of a small group of lightly armed individuals. This is a serious and coherent threat to the recognised Government of Yemen, any constitutional process, and, ultimately, to the security of one of the key trade routes of the whole world through what we once saw as the Straits of Aden, with shipping heading up towards the Suez canal. Ultimately, if we allow a failed state in Yemen we would all pay the price for it in the form of the cost of shipping, as well as the potential disruption to energy supplies.
The alternative to the Saudi coalition—let us assume it is not the Saudis and their allies who intervene—is western intervention to enforce a UN motion. The same people very busily attacking this coalition are the same people who regularly oppose any western intervention in the middle east. For a UN resolution to have any meaning it needs to be implemented and it is questionable who it would want to take the action.

Peter Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Foster: No, I do not think I will as we are running short of time.
The argument that the support should be removed is wrong.
On the motion itself, it was interesting to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary telling us about the two command centres. That is what leaps out from the motion. She talks about the northern command centre in Riyadh, where our advisers are, and that was the place where the strikes were not authorised. She then talked about the southern command centre, where our advisers are not, and says that that is where the problems are in terms of targeting. Well, it does say something that we are going to pull away from the site where it is not happening, which would not make any difference.

Emily Thornberry: The southern command centre has been identified, but who is in it has not been identified. Neither has it been identified whether it included anybody from any particular company—whether it be a British company or not; or indeed what British personnel, if any, are involved.

Kevin Foster: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. However, I still do not see how pulling out our supporters and advisers from the northern command centre in Riyadh, as the motion suggests, would make any difference to what is happening there. It is therefore a rather interesting point that the hon. Lady has raised. Certainly for me, the Government’s amendment is far stronger than the Opposition’s motion. I nevertheless pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leicester East, who managed to come up with an amendment that showed a lot more understanding than his party’s Front-Bench motion. It might not agree with the view being presented on Russia Today, but it had a bit more understanding of the region and the area.
Let me move on to the potential or alleged use of cluster bombs. It must be clear—it might not have been clear from one of the SNP’s contributions—that the weaponry was last delivered in 1989. Whether or not that weaponry delivered in 1989 is being used will not change anything that we do today. That said, an issue on which I challenged the Saudi Foreign Minister directly was that the country’s signing up to and ratifying the international treaty is long overdue. Yes, I was told that Saudi Arabia was considering it, but I suspect that its consideration will be a lot longer than most of us would prefer. I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about the work we are doing to encourage the country as one of our key allies to ratify that treaty and send a powerful message that it no longer intends to produce, retain or—crucially—use that type of weaponry.
Finally, I accept that the decision to be taken is going to be difficult for anyone. It is a complex situation and none of the outcomes looks particularly ideal. I accept that we therefore have to be realistic about the outcome. As with so many other situations in the middle east, we need to be careful what we wish for, because we might sometimes find that what we wish for turns out to be a lot worse than the devil we know.

Chris White: As mentioned in the debate, the Committees on Arms Export Controls has in recent months conducted an inquiry into the conflict in Yemen and the use of UK-manufactured arms in it. In a joint report of the then Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the International Development Committee, following the inquiry that I chaired, the conclusion from the widespread evidence that we heard was that there have been violations of international humanitarian law, as reported by organisations such as the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. As a result, the joint Committee report has called on the Government to push for a UN-led investigation into the conduct of the Saudi-led coalition, and for the suspension of arms sales to the country while this investigation takes place.
Since the report was published on 15 September, we have seen further civilian casualties—not least on 8 October, which saw the most severe attack of the conflict yet, as mentioned by a number of colleagues.

Gerald Howarth: I would like to ask my hon. Friend the same question that I put to the shadow Foreign Secretary. When he talks about suspending arms sales, what does that mean? Does it mean that he and his Committee believe that the United Kingdom  should withhold the supply of spare parts and withdraw our advisers to the Royal Saudi Air Force, or does it relate just to future sales down the track?

Chris White: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. We are running very tight on time, and if Members want to hear the concluding speeches from the Front Benches at their fullest, I suggest having as few interventions as possible and making them very short.

Chris White: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I thought I should grant my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) the chance to ask that question. We have a very short amount of time for this debate, but we deserve the opportunity to have a proper discussion of what a pause in arms sales would be. I would ask a more open question in response to those who have spoken on the same side as my hon. Friend: we were looking for a UN-led independent investigation, so what is preventing that investigation?
Saudi Arabia has described the airstrikes on the funeral as a mistake, while the Government continue to depend on Saudi assurances in relation to the conflict. The number of civilian casualties prompts me to ask whether every act that results in such loss can be considered a mistake. As Philippe Sands QC told the Committees on Arms Export Controls, the question of whether or not a state “intends” to commit a violation does not detract from the fact that a violation is committed by that state.
The United Kingdom’s legal obligations stipulate that the Government must suspend arms sales if there is a clear risk that there might be a violation of international humanitarian law. I suggest that that criterion has been met, and that arms sales to Saudi Arabia should therefore be suspended. I repeat our report’s recommendation that while such doubt and uncertainty about compliance with international humanitarian law in Yemen exists, the default position of the UK Government should be not to continue to sell weapons, but to pause until they are satisfied that allegations have been investigated properly.

Robert Jenrick: I wish that there were more time for me to express my sadness at seeing a beautiful, seductive, complex country, which I have had the pleasure of visiting several times, laid low once again. When I last visited Sana’a, I was told about a speech made 100 years ago by Aubrey Herbert, who was then Member of Parliament for Yeovil, about the situation in the country. He said that it was
“like the dream of some haunted painter.”
He said that women and men were “skin and bone”, with
“begging eyes and clutching hands”.
That speech, made 100 years ago, could have been made today, and it fills me with great sadness to see the state of the country.
Let me turn briefly—for I have very little time—to the emotive question of arms sales, which has been the subject of our debate today. Let me make clear what those arms sales are about. They are about giving a nation that is under attack the arms that it needs to defend its territory. They are about giving an important ally the arms that it needs to re-establish, or try to  re-establish, a legitimate Government who have been displaced by the Houthi rebels. We must not refrain—and we have not done so today—from expressing our views about the way in which the war in Yemen is being conducted, and we are very concerned about the large number of casualties.
It is right that this country has high standards. However, we must not forget the context, and that, I am afraid, is what some of the speeches missed, including the speech made by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). The context is that a Houthi-controlled, Iranian-backed regime would create a chaotic, unstable place, ripe for exploitation by Iran, by al-Qaeda and by Daesh. It would pose a risk to freedom of navigation in a geopolitically crucial part of the world, and would encourage terrorism there, across the Arabian peninsula, and in the horn of Africa. That is the context, and that is our strategic interest.
We must also not forget that this debate is more important than the sale of weapons, although jobs understandably depend on them. It is a message to our friends and allies, and it is a message to our enemies as well. If we as a nation want to help this desperate country, we must have an influential voice in the region. We must beware of simple answers to complex questions. We must be cautious about adopting a singular, anti-Saudi Arabia line. We must appreciate the context: the need to support a legitimate Government; to allow Saudi Arabia to defend its borders and territorial integrity; to try to resist the descent of a proud, great nation that I have had the pleasure of visiting into an Iranian-backed Houthi regime of chaos and destruction; and to retain some modest influence over the conduct of the war. We would have no influence were we to suspend our arms sales and walk away. Among our many security objectives and values should be keeping faith with old and important allies and being a reliable security partner, which we should consider essential.

Kate Osamor: We have heard an impassioned and informed debate on the conflict in Yemen, to which there is no end in sight and which is rapidly turning into the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke with his customary passion and authority on this issue, and I believe he spoke for Members in all parts of the House. Likewise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who has tirelessly pursued peace in Yemen, once again made a powerful case for a proper investigation of all these allegations. As an illustration of the cross-party concern on these issues, we heard forceful and eloquent contributions from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias), who told us of the use of cluster bombs, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), who spoke of the atrocities in Yemen and the targeting of innocent children, and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who spoke about the international investigation that needs to cover both sides.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) supports the call for an independent inquiry and spoke of other issues. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick), the right  hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has great insight and understanding of the region, and the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who spoke with passion about the conflict and its effect on the civilian population and how we should scrutinise the true threat in the region. We heard, too, from the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), and the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), who spoke of the airstrikes, the hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani), who spoke about the desperate need for humanitarian relief, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who supports the peace process and has a lot of experience. Many Members from all parties spoke powerfully about the need for a full independent investigation; I do not have enough time to mention them all, but I know that they stand with me on the comments they made.
I believe everyone who spoke today is united on one thing: wherever we stand individually on the causes of this conflict and how it must ultimately be resolved, and wherever we stand individually on Britain’s long-term relationship with Saudi Arabia as a military ally and trading partner, we share the common view that what matters above all else now is the need to tackle the humanitarian crisis that is gripping Yemen and to stop the thousands of civilian deaths turning into tens or hundreds of thousands as the country tips into famine and epidemic disease.
We have all been moved by the images of emaciated children and teenagers so weak with malnutrition that they are almost beyond help. The healthcare system in many parts of the country has been destroyed and humanitarian relief bodies are often physically unable to access those in the greatest need. We have also all been saddened by the stories of young goat-herders in rural areas picking up cluster bombs, thinking they are toys, with all too predictable and devastating results. But the true horror in Yemen lies not in individual images and stories, but in the sheer numbers affected, especially of children, and in asking what on earth the future holds for them.
Even before the war, 1.6 million children in Yemen did not go to school. Since March 2015, thousands more schools have been closed, and up to 600,000 more children are receiving no education. Even before the war, Yemen had one of the highest rates of malnutrition in the world, but since March 2015 some 1.3 million children have now moved into a state of acute malnutrition. Their situation is getting worse. Muhannad Hadi of the World Food Programme said only yesterday:
“Hunger is increasing every day and people have exhausted all their survival strategies”.
The WFP director, Torben Due, explained the situation on the ground, saying:
“We need to provide a full ration to every family in need, but sadly we have had to…split assistance between impoverished families to meet growing needs”.
His devastating conclusion is:
“An entire generation could be crippled by hunger”.
On top of that, Yemen is now facing a cholera epidemic, with the number of cases growing and spreading every day.
According to the UN, the majority of those who have been killed have died as a result of coalition air strikes. Time and again, we hear from the Saudis that they are  investigating. Indeed, what are the UK Government doing? We are told that the reports of civilian casualties from coalition air strikes are greatly exaggerated, and that those being hit are in fact Houthi rebels. Will the Government tell us how that squares with the fact that well over 1,000 of those casualties are children?
At the heart of this debate and today’s motion is a simple question, as set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). This is not about whether or not anyone agrees with the justification for the conflict or the UN mandate that underpins it. Given the concerns about the way in which the coalition forces are conducting the conflict and about the potential violations of international humanitarian law, given the clear inadequacy of the Saudi-led investigations into those alleged violations, and given the terrible and worsening consequences for the civilian population of Yemen as long as the conflict continues, it surely makes sense for the UK to suspend its support for the coalition forces until there has been a proper, full investigation into how the war is being conducted and whether international law is being broken.
Let me boil this down to one example. On 11 September, in the rebel-held Sa’ada province, coalition air forces attacked and destroyed a drilling rig building a major new clean water well. When local civilians and healthcare workers rushed to the scene to aid the workers who had been injured, the coalition air forces returned and struck the scene again. In total, 30 civilians were killed and 17 were wounded. That is why the motion makes a simple case, which we hope will command the support of the whole House. Let the UN investigate this and all the thousands of other incidents. Let the UN determine whether there have been violations of international law. In the interim, let the Government suspend their support for the coalition forces; and let the message go out from this House that we care about the children in Yemen who are at risk.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate, to dispel some of the myths that surround the conflict, to put the background to the conflict in context and to clarify the UK’s role as we seek to resolve the challenges facing Yemen today. As we have heard, Britain has a historical relationship with the region. We are a P5 member of the United Nations Security Council and we work with our international colleagues. We also support the UN envoy and recommend his road map, which has been shared with stakeholders.
It is worth stepping back briefly to set in context the challenges that Yemen currently faces. It is a young country. The north and south were united only in 1990. The failure by its then President Saleh to strengthen the nation’s bonds created space for extremism in the form of al-Qaeda. He was then forced to stand aside in the Arab spring. Vice-President Hadi was then legitimately appointed President, and work began on trying to unite the country through the national dialogue conference, which took place in 2013 and 2014. The peace and national partnership agreement in September 2014 was signed by the Houthis themselves, yet in that very same  month they moved south from their strongholds into the capital, took over key buildings and placed Cabinet members under arrest. Those actions prompted President Hadi to request international support. That was legitimised through UN Security Council resolution 2216, which includes the words “by all necessary means” and led to the formation of the Saudi-led coalition.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, the UK has an important relationship with Saudi Arabia—a strategic and defence partner for decades. We need to use that relationship to advance Saudi Arabia’s accountability. It is itself a new country, gaining independence in 1932, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy). The concept of central government is relatively new. Its leadership is on the moderate side of a conservative population, a point made earlier. We want more accountability and transparency, and we need to get involved in pushing that forward. I welcome the Deputy Crown Prince’s “Vision 2030” which underlines where he would like to take the country. Is it in Saudi Arabia’s interests to test the resolve of the west and deliberately breach international humanitarian law?
The hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) mentioned the visit by Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister. Where better to hold to account another Foreign Minister than in the mother of all Parliaments? He did a service to his country and to us by holding his hand up and talking about the challenges he faces and what role Britain could play in moving the situation forward.
Humanitarian issues were raised by several colleagues. DFID is at the forefront of that engagement. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who held a donors conference at the UN General Assembly that increased our aid package to £100 million and encouraged others to join us in providing support to tackle the humanitarian situation on the ground. We estimate that 80% of the population is in need of assistance.

Keith Vaz: Will the Minister give way?

Tobias Ellwood: There is not enough time.
I stress the importance of the port of Hudaydah, where ships are queuing up to get in. I am pleased that DFID is looking at the situation to see what we can do to repair the cranes.
The licensing issues have been taken seriously, with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary focusing on them. The Ministry of Defence monitors the incidence of alleged violations of international humanitarian law using all the available information to form an overall view of Saudi Arabia’s approach and attitude to international humanitarian law.
The Saudi evaluation process has been slow. It has taken time and there have been mistakes. Modern warfare is complex and difficult, but we must ensure that we work with the Saudis so that they can put their hand up, which is exactly what happened when I went to Saudi Arabia to ask what happened when the funeral attack took place on 8 October. This was a shocking and tragic incident. The Foreign Secretary expressed deep regrets about it when speaking to the Saudi Foreign Minister, and I travelled to the capital to express our concerns and to ask about the details of the investigation. It transpires  that standard operating procedures were not followed in this particular case. At least one senior officer did not follow the agreed rules of engagement, and I expect him and others to face a court martial.
To conclude, this Government’s position is clear: the conflict in Yemen must end; a political agreement between the Yemeni parties must be found; and the humanitarian suffering and the economic situation must be addressed. Britain continues to play an important role and supports the UN envoy’s road map, which was recently distributed to all stakeholders. We continue to monitor the situation closely and factor any incidents of concern into our consideration of our continued export of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
The Government are not opposed to the idea of independent UN-led investigations, as I have said in this Chamber before, but first we want Saudi Arabia to investigate allegations—that is international convention. Unlike Russia, which is defying international concern in Syria, Saudi Arabia—

Nick Brown: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House divided:
Ayes 193, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Question agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House supports efforts to bring about a cessation of hostilities and provide humanitarian relief in Yemen, and notes that the country is now on the brink of famine; condemns the reported bombings of civilian areas that have exacerbated this crisis; and calls on the Government to continue to support the UN Special Envoy in his ongoing efforts to achieve a political solution to bring sustainable peace to Yemen.

PETITION - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1995 AND 2011 PENSIONS ACTS

Mark Tami: The petition relates to implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pensions Acts and the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—campaign. I want to place on record my thanks to Caron Fahy, Lynne Dorm, Rosemarie Phoenix, Janet Shefras, Julia Clay and Anne Tapp for collecting nearly 400 signatures in Alyn and Deeside.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Alyn and Deeside,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001966]

Birmingham Pub Bombings:  Legal Aid

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Jess Phillips: I called this debate with the support and backing of all the Members of Parliament for Birmingham. Special credit goes to my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for joining me here today. I want to say a massive thank you to all Members from across the midlands, especially the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who have always supported the campaign. I also thank Northern Ireland Members who are here tonight to give their support. I wish to give a special mention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who recently gave voice to the issue in this place.
Today I will focus on two areas. I want to breathe life into a debate that has become about claim and counter-claim and a very famous miscarriage of justice. It is time that in this place and outside it the story of the 21 people who died becomes our focus. I will also cover some of the issues that the families of the 21 victims have faced in the fight to receive fair and equal access to our justice system.
I am sure that the Minister is poised to tell the House that yesterday the families were informed that they would be granted some form of legal aid funding. That was not the case when I called for the debate, so perhaps I will do a little less fist-waving—I do love to do that—than I might have. However, their treatment and the legal funding that has been granted still pose fundamental questions that must be answered.
For Brummies, this is a bit like knowing where you were when Kennedy died. Anyone from Birmingham has a story to tell about the night of the pub bombings. My parents were driving away from the city with my two brothers—then a baby and a toddler—in the back of the car when they heard the blast. My dad returned to work the following Monday to find that a young woman he taught had been killed. That young woman was 18-year-old Maxine Hambleton.
Twenty-one people died in the Birmingham pub bombings on 21 November 1974. Those 21 people have been largely forgotten in a story that for so many people became about six men. When I was a kid, the story of the Birmingham Six was everywhere. It is worth noting that it was not the justice system that acted to correct itself in these matters; it was the actions of a Member of this House at the time—namely, Chris Mullin—that led to their release. This House has had, and can have again, an important role to play in the story.
Along with similar miscarriages of justice at the time, the story of that fatal night became, for many, a story about the accused and the war in Northern Ireland. The lives and loves of the people who died got lost; today,  we must remember them. They were: Desmond Reilly, Eugene Reilly, Maxine Hambleton, Jane Davis, Michael Beasley, Lynn Bennett, Stanley Bodman, James Caddick, Thomas Chaytor, James Craig, Paul Davies, Charles Grey, Anne Hayes, John Jones, Neil Marsh, Marilyn Nash, Pamela Palmer, Maureen Roberts, John Rowlands, Trevor Thrupp and Stephen Whalley. Their names are not enough. The people who died had lives and responsibilities.
That night, six friends stood around a bar at the Mulberry Bush—like we all do after a long day’s work—sharing a pint and a joke. It was Stan Bodman’s turn to buy a round of drinks. A larger-than-life character, the life and soul of the group, his mates included John Rowlands, an electrician, a father and a husband; and John Jones, a postman, who that day had returned from two weeks’ leave. Stan’s request for drinks saved the life of the barmaid, but ended those of him and his friends. When they were found in the rubble, they were positioned exactly where they stood, in a circle—friends in death, as they had been in life.
At the same time that Stan was ordering his last round of drinks, Paul Davies was walking past the Mulberry Bush. When the bomb went off, he and his friends died outright. He was 20 years old, with a young child and one on the way. His partner never got over his death, and she died in tragic circumstances a few years later, leaving her child an orphan.
Maxine Hambleton had popped into the Tavern in the Town to hand out tickets for a house-warming party that she was planning to give. That night, Maxine and Jane Davis, who was the youngest victim, at 17, both died, their lives extinguished before they ever had time to begin. I met Julie Hambleton, the sister of Maxine, five years ago. Until recently, we did not realise the connection between our families. Julie, her family and the families of many others who died that night have been campaigning for years to find out what happened to their loved ones. I want to stress today that the victims of these killings are not confined to those who died; they include those who were injured and the hundreds of people affected through the loss, grief and fear that followed.
Last week, Julie wrote to me:
“Maxine was our sister. She had an aura of such maturity that even now when I remember her, those memories are of a young woman who had a purpose and direction in life. My memories of Maxine are very few and far between, which as I’m sure you can imagine is hard…I would love to have…memories of her…I sit here at work, writing this to you, crying, fighting to try and remember more about my beautiful, kind, generous and funny big sister. I remember how we watched Thunderbirds together when we were living in Yardley in the old cottage opposite the Church. We used to sit and watch it every week…watching these programmes helps me to feel her…presence. Our love for her will never ever die for as long as we live and we will fight until our dying breath, because we know without any doubt, that she would have died for any one of us…to get to the truth.”
The families want to know who killed their loved ones. They want to know what happened in the investigation, which is still so shrouded in secrecy and questions. After years of individual battles, the families came together to form the campaign group Justice For The 21. Julie Hambleton, who was just a kid at the time of the bombings, leads this campaign with the same  tenacity and emotion as if they had happened yesterday. I admire her resilience; she has fought this for longer than I have been alive.
And so to the issue today. In June this year, the Birmingham and Solihull coroner ruled that, on the basis of submissions made by the legal teams of three of the victims’ families, there was sufficient reason to resume the inquest. It is important to state that the legal support that has been offered to date has been provided completely for free to the victims’ families. Without the fight from the families, and the generosity of their lawyers, the inquest would never, ever have resumed.
Today is 26 October, and the day after tomorrow—on 28 October—submissions are to be made on the scope and process of the resumed inquest.

Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech; she speaks for all of us. I hope that the Minister will address the months since the inquest was granted in which the families have had to wait to hear about their legal aid. That simply shows a lack of respect, and an apology for that extra delay would be useful today.

Jess Phillips: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I could not agree more. The families involved were told only yesterday that arrangements will be made for their legal teams to work with another firm and receive legal aid. Does the Minister think that three days’ notice on this matter is sufficient?
I stress how much I welcome the progress that has been made since I called for the debate. At that time, the families still in had no idea whether they would be granted funding at all, even though they applied for exceptional case funding from the Legal Aid Agency in January this year, and the resumed inquest was granted in June. In the meantime, the families also applied to the Home Secretary to seek the use of the Hillsborough funding and administration scheme. The families have been given messages of support all along the way from the former Home Secretary, who is now the Prime Minister, the new Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary. However, those warm words proved to be little else. The legacy of what happened at Hillsborough marked for many a turning point in how the families of those bereaved or injured in large public disasters would be treated. Lord Wills, in speaking to his Public Advocate Bill in the other place, stated that when he met families of those that died in Hillsborough in 2009, one
“message that came through over and over again was that they wanted to find a way to prevent other similarly bereaved families suffering and having to endure in the way they had suffered and endured for 20 years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 1519-20.]
The Prime Minister should rightly feel proud of her role in how the Hillsborough families finally got justice, but I am afraid that the systemic problems that these brave families fought against still remain. The current Home Secretary said that funding the Birmingham pub bombing families through the Hillsborough scheme would not be appropriate, but I take real issue with that judgment. Both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have cited the way in which the inquests on the 7/7 bombings were funded, even though the scheme that those families used is no longer available, as the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 removed it.
The bereaved Birmingham families feel that they were strung along by the Home Secretary on this matter, and ultimately let down. They tell me that she told them that she had written to the Justice Secretary to give her support for exceptional case funding from the Legal Aid Agency. When Julie Hambleton and I approached the Justice Secretary in Birmingham, she seemed to have no knowledge of the case. The families then received a letter from the Justice Secretary saying that neither she nor any politician could influence the outcome from the Legal Aid Agency, which seemed contrary to what they had been told by the Home Secretary.
With three days to go before the process is to begin, the families are informed of an arrangement that has strings attached. They feel they have been misled and fobbed off. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that these are families who lost their sisters, mothers, brothers, daughters and partners. They are just ordinary working-class people who are trying to fight for justice in the face of powerful actors whom they already do not trust. The appalling way in which the funding for their case has been handled pushes them—and, I have to say, me—into really doubting that those in power want to see justice done. As with Hillsborough before, this is a David and Goliath fight.
The former chief coroner, who will chair the resumed inquests, called for parity of funding in inquests where there is state involvement.

Steve McCabe: My hon. Friend is making a valuable speech. On seeking parity, would it not be useful to know how much public money is being made available to fund the legal costs of the police and other Government agencies in this case, and how that compares with the help for the families?

Jess Phillips: I agree with my hon. Friend. The former chief coroner, who will chair the resumed inquest, called in his annual report for exactly the same level of parity. Parity of funding means at the rates available to other parties to the resumed inquests. West Midlands police has apparently set aside £1 million so far. Former police officers will be represented through the Police Federation, and Government Departments will no doubt be represented by lawyers from the private sector.
Tonight I ask whether the legal aid for the relatives of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings is appropriate or sufficient. I accept that it might be appropriate in many circumstances, but Hillsborough gives us a successful model, and there has been no explanation of why that cannot be replicated in this case or, in fact, in future cases of this kind. That is in the gift of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady is speaking passionately from the heart. It is clear that the process lacks compassion for those who lost loved ones in the Birmingham bombing atrocity. Does she agree that the relatives should receive the same support that was given to the victims of Hillsborough so that they can find out the truth about what happened to their loved ones, who were murdered by IRA terrorists so horribly many years ago?

Jess Phillips: I think that this and other cases that will almost certainly be discussed in this place will require a specific mechanism for the future.
Will the Minister guarantee today that legal aid funding will provide the Birmingham families with parity? As a Birmingham tax and rate payer, and as a representative of Birmingham tax and rate payers, all I ask is that fairness is considered when our money is spent. Hundreds of my constituents and thousands of Brummies have signed petitions and written letters in support of the families. Without the certainty of parity, how can any of them—and, in fact, any citizen in this country—ever believe that if the worst were to happen to their relatives, those responsible would face justice? So many people in this country believe that powerful establishment figures act against them. The levels of disillusionment in the UK today should worry us all.
The Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that she would fight against burning injustice. She said:
“When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty but to you.”
I stand here today to ask on behalf of the ordinary families in Birmingham whether this Government will help them to be mighty and powerful, or are those words worthless?

Julian Knight: I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for allowing me to speak briefly. Her speech was not just powerful, but, frankly, superb.
I am keen to demonstrate, by standing here today, that this is not a party political issue. Finding justice for the victims of IRA terrorism is a cause that unites Members across the House and the west midlands. The false conviction of the Birmingham Six meant that vital inquiries into what really happened in 1974 closed down far too early. That the new inquiry might have unearthed new evidence only makes the mistake more obvious and tragic.
Four decades is too long to wait for justice. This Government have already proven themselves willing to confront difficult issues from the past, such as Hillsborough. I know that legal aid is independently run, but January is far too long a wait and shows that the system is not meeting the test of compassion in our society.
We have come a long way since 1974. We are a more tolerant and less deferential society, thank goodness, but we should not rest until past injustices have been faced up to.

Oliver Heald: May I join in the tributes to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and pay tribute to those who have supported her? We have heard tonight from the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight).
I was a young student when the bombings happened. Like others of my generation, I remember the sense of deep shock and horror at this event in November 1974—it was shortly after the general election when Harold Wilson won by a narrow majority—when bombs exploded in two public houses in central Birmingham. Twenty-one people were killed, and 222 others were injured. At the  time, it was the deadliest act of terrorism that had happened in Great Britain since the second world war. It caused great shock, not only in Birmingham, as the hon. Lady has said, but right across the country. People were horrified by what had happened. I remember the deep national mood of mourning at the time. The Government express their heartfelt sympathy to the friends and the families of all the innocent people who lost their lives in that shocking crime, and to those who were injured and had their lives changed by this awful event.
There are inquests where families need more help than they would get in an ordinary—if one can call it that—inquest, which is a matter of finding out fairly simply what the situation was, with the coroner asking the questions. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which has been mentioned, enables the provision of exceptional case funding for representation in such cases if certain tests are met. The Legal Aid Agency decides legal aid applications entirely independently, which is why Ministers have said—rightly so, I think the hon. Lady would agree—that it is not for politicians to interfere in its independent decision making.
Two applications have been received by the Legal Aid Agency. So far, one has been granted and, as the hon. Lady said, a way has been suggested of finding the other application to be within the rules. Those applications do not cover all the families who have been bereaved, so there may be further applications. I welcome, as she has, the fact that one of the applications has been accepted and that a way has been found to proceed with the other.
The Birmingham and Solihull coroner, Louise Hunt, has decided to reopen the inquests into these deaths, because she felt that there was sufficient reason to do so. That is partly because of the campaign that has been waged to resume the inquest and to look at the new evidence, which she feels should be investigated. I do not know whether the hon. Lady would agree, but I take the view that there is a role for campaigners to get behind an issue, to press and to push, and for Members of Parliament to help them. She mentioned Chris Mullin, and it is true that he took part in such a campaign, as she is doing in relation to this.
The exceptional case funding scheme is not intended to provide a general power to fund cases that fall outside legal aid. Legal aid is fundamental to our system. Resources are not limitless, as we all know, and it is always necessary to make sure that public confidence—

Jess Phillips: I wonder whether the fund that the other actors in the inquest will have is limitless.

Oliver Heald: That is a point that the hon. Lady has made. I will come to it in a second, but I think there is an issue here that needs examination. The decision about whether to provide legal aid funding in an individual case should not be a political one. It is solely for the director of legal aid casework at the Legal Aid Agency to decide whether a particular case is within the regulations and the laws, which we in Parliament have set.
On the overall position mentioned by the hon. Lady, I want to make it clear that we acknowledge there is a wider issue. It turns on the perception that, as she  mentioned, families in very difficult circumstances with complicated cases have gone unrepresented while public bodies and individuals are represented at a cost to the public. The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are rightly working collaboratively to consider that issue.
As the hon. Lady said, the families at the 7/7 inquest received legal aid exceptional case funding, which was under an earlier scheme. The issue related to the terms and conditions for receiving legal aid. In fact, it is obvious from what has happened in recent days that it is possible to receive legal aid under the current scheme.
Questions have been asked about other possible funding arrangements, and the arrangement used for the Hillsborough families—the Home Office made direct grants for representation at the hearing of inquest—does raise a question. The Hillsborough inquiry was expertly conducted by Lord Justice Goldring, who investigated the case in a very sensitive, effective and thorough way, but there are lessons to be learned about the tragic history of Hillsborough. As the hon. Lady may know, Bishop James Jones, who played a distinguished part in tackling the Hillsborough case, is preparing a report on how it was dealt with, and we want that report to inform how we take this work forward.

Liam Byrne: The Minister is addressing the points raised well. If, as he says, he is looking at the lessons to be learned, will he tell the House tonight that he agrees with us that there should be parity of funding for the legal costs in this inquest? Does he agree with the parity principle—yes or no?

Oliver Heald: What is important is that there should be an element of equality of arms in the sense that the work that needs to be done for the families should be done effectively and in accordance with the funding arrangements put in place by the Legal Aid Agency. Let us be clear that for cases that involve an inquest for which exceptional case funding has been agreed, I have never heard the scheme described as not providing enough funding for particular items of work for lawyers. The point is that there are rules about how people can enter the scheme and, as appears from the decision that has been mentioned, such a case has led to funding.
I want to make the point that the coroner for the Birmingham inquest will be His Honour Judge Peter Thornton, the previous Chief Coroner, and I am sure that he will have the confidence of the families. I am grateful to hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, and I think we will all want to pay tribute to the way in which the families have campaigned.

Gisela Stuart: May I briefly draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, for 7/7, there was never any question of a problem with the investigation, but there was such a problem with Hillsborough and with Birmingham? Therefore, unless he now agrees to parity of funding, he will not be addressing the fundamental problem, which is that there was a difficulty with the police investigation. That is what the families object to.

Oliver Heald: We may just be talking semantics. I certainly agree that it is important for families with legal aid representation to be able to do what their   lawyers think is necessary to conduct their affairs at the inquest properly. If the right hon. Lady is simply saying that the amount of money must be exactly the same for all, I do not think the system would ever work in that way. My own experience of appearing at inquests, as I have in the past, and of appearing in cases is that different rates of pay can be given to different lawyers, but the important thing is that the lawyers should be doing what is necessary, in a competent and effective way, to represent their clients. From what I know of the solicitors who have been granted a legal aid certificate—I am not in a position to say who they are—I do not think that is an issue.

Jack Dromey: First, I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her outstanding speech—she spoke passionately about a grotesque injustice. As the shadow Minister for Policing at the time, I was involved in the discussions on the Policing and Crime Bill and the Hillsborough inquest. It was indicated then that there was sympathy for proper representation for the Birmingham families, based on the Hillsborough model. Why has it taken so long that, just three days before the process starts, there is at last movement? Why can the Minister not give the simple assurance that the Hillsborough principle will be replicated in the Birmingham case?

Oliver Heald: As I have indicated, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are looking at the best way forward. We want to learn the lessons from Hillsborough and regard the report being prepared by Bishop Jones as an important part of that. The issue is not so much whether the funding is through the legal aid fund or through a Hillsborough-type approach as the fact that the families should be represented if the case requires. That is the system we are trying to create.

Mike Wood: Will the Minister give way?

Oliver Heald: I have about half a second, but I will, quickly.

Mike Wood: Does the Minister recognise that the basic test of fairness for the families is that they all need access to representation and that that representation needs to be at the same level as that of other parties in the inquest?

Oliver Heald: Yes, and it is important—
House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No.9(7)).